Political Systems and Nation States

[Anonymouse]

Prior to the Enlightenment we had no ideas of liberalism, marxism, capitalism, etc. The Enlightenment basically introduced these ideas woven with nation states. It introduced Hobbes and Locke and other morons who layed out the blueprints for nation states. It brought collectivization to a whole new level, despite the rhetoric or 'individualism' because submitting to the state, you lose the power of the individual in the collective mob. The Enlightenment thinkers are the people who created "manifest destiny" and the idea of imperializing the "lesser peoples". It's this idea that 'we are better than them' so we have more authority over them. That is the basis of all politics and nation states and has been so since the Enlightenment.

The nation states rely on telling you how to think and what to do and it is that which treads on your property rights. And all of that for what? "Organization"? Man has sought organization and has organized in the past and present and will do so in the future. Organization and cooperation have nothing to do with nation states enforcing their ideologies and -isms on you. Remember, all the ideologies and -isms we have were raised during the Enlightenment. All politics really is, is for control of the masses, and control over your property rights. That's what it boils down to.

You tell me that you don't believe Roosevelt would have lied to get this country to enter World War II. You also tell me that you don't believe the government had foreknowledge of 911. I suggest you read "A Time For War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Path to Pearl Harbor", by Robert Smith Thompson. It'll shed alot of light on the situation. Roosevelt was perhaps one of the most cunning presidents this country has ever had.

As far as the 911 attack. This is no coincidence. Isn't it awkward that as soon as this happened, we had America retaliating and announcing a "whole war on terrorism"? I mean I still remember the politicians and media outlets right after the event crying "Terrorist". How did they know? Maybe it was another country, or someone from here? It's all too bogus to have been coincidence. The whole idea of American hegemony and a Pax Americana have been drawn up by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Lewish Libbey and a few others, in a document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences", written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Obviously this is something that has been on their minds quite a while before 911. In any event, the document went on about how Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. Isn't it also funny that this same document points out Iran, Syria and North Korea as the other 'dangerous regimes'?

America did little to nothing to prevent the sad events that unfolded on 911. To validate this you have at least 11 countries who provided advance warning to the US of the 911 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation *. The list they provided included the names of 4 of the hijackers.

*Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001.

If you want a crash course on the war on terrorism, perhaps you should best visit this link which will give you a thorough rundown on the happenings.

http://www.jimmarrs.com/view/view102301.html

So much for statism. The argument that it provides "safety" and "organization" is hogwash. The State is good for nothing. It couldn't provide safety from these terrorists and in fact perhaps let it happen, nor can it provide safety from your average mugger or murderer. What is it good for? Perhaps you can tell me the benefits of the State?

[surferarmo]

First of all, I would like to request that I debate with you rather than a proffessor. With that said, here we go.

Lets focus on 9/11 first. What the media does is seperate from what politicans do. They are their own. A story is a story. They always jump to conclusions. They did in the Truman election, and they jumped to conclusions in this past presidential election. Now, for one moment, think about what was bombed. The first major target...WTC. The WTC is the economic base for the world, and a strong symbol of capital, and economic strength for our country. A powerful message was sent in bombing such a thing. Tis the reason for some of the economic downfall our country is experiencing. The next thing that was bombed...the Pentagon. Home and symbol of our nations defense. That building houses the offices of the most intelligent generals, engineers; not to mention it houses the james bond style technology that monitors our safety. Why would President Bush allow these two extremely important facilities be completely and partially destroyed. I was in NYC this past month, and damn, it is extremely crowded, the comotion during 9/11 must have been beyond our scope of crowded and most other peoples for that matter. Why not allow them to bomb somewhere else? Those were the worst things that could have been bombed....besides the white house and my house.

The reason people were able to jump to conclusions is quite simple. I will start with the simplistic and work my way up.

With FEW exceptions, members participating in terrorist activities are usually those of Middle Eastern descent, with a Muslim backround. The only exception I can think of, is the Oklahoma bombing. You can present to me three more exceptions of TERROR. I mean terrorist attacks, not someone bombing a bank vault to rob, I mean a terrorist bombing something strictly to instill fear into the minds of others.

There have been terrorist bombings in varying and diverse locations of Europe. These bombings were perpetrated by terrorists from Middle Eastern Decsent.

All over the world, American Embassys have been bombed by the same group of people bombing Europe. Where do these people get their next adrenaline rush after bombing embassys loses its thrill: the United States of America itself.

War is totally justified. All these bombings mentioned above have had no aggressive response. How many more bombings does it take before war is a valid response? The answer: -100. THe fact is, no reprisal to the attacks made the terrorist grow brave. An aggressive response is totally necessary. Not only is it suppressing present initiatives for terrorism, it is supressing future initiatives as well.

I am going to tell you something that might strike your fancy. While I was in NY, I was talking with some people, and just asked them if the supported the war after seeing first hand the events of 9/11. I was suprised to hear that all of them had supported the war. I spoke to only 30 people, and about 18 of them were random. Still, we here on the west coast were so far and distant from those events. It is easy for us who are sooo distant to say that there is another alternative to ridding the earth of terrorism. We all had our parents come home that day. We didnt look out the classroom window to see two planes fly into buildings.

To hit on FDR. Very cunning man indeed. Why do you think he was in office for almost three terms! Again, I will ask, why did he let a major port be bombed? Major carriers were destroyed. Why not let them bomb some crappy barrack? Again, questions that need answers.

[Anonymouse]

First of all, I would like to request that I debate with you rather than a proffessor. With that said, here we go.

Lets focus on 9/11 first. What the media does is seperate from what politicans do. They are their own. A story is a story. They always jump to conclusions. They did in the Truman election, and they jumped to conclusions in this past presidential election. Now, for one moment, think about what was bombed. The first major target...WTC. The WTC is the economic base for the world, and a strong symbol of capital, and economic strength for our country. A powerful message was sent in bombing such a thing. Tis the reason for some of the economic downfall our country is experiencing. The next thing that was bombed...the Pentagon. Home and symbol of our nations defense. That building houses the offices of the most intelligent generals, engineers; not to mention it houses the james bond style technology that monitors our safety. Why would President Bush allow these two extremely important facilities be completely and partially destroyed. I was in NYC this past month, and damn, it is extremely crowded, the comotion during 9/11 must have been beyond our scope of crowded and most other peoples for that matter. Why not allow them to bomb somewhere else? Those were the worst things that could have been bombed....besides the white house and my house.

The reason people were able to jump to conclusions is quite simple. I will start with the simplistic and work my way up.

With FEW exceptions, members participating in terrorist activities are usually those of Middle Eastern descent, with a Muslim backround. The only exception I can think of, is the Oklahoma bombing. You can present to me three more exceptions of TERROR. I mean terrorist attacks, not someone bombing a bank vault to rob, I mean a terrorist bombing something strictly to instill fear into the minds of others.

There have been terrorist bombings in varying and diverse locations of Europe. These bombings were perpetrated by terrorists from Middle Eastern Decsent.

All over the world, American Embassys have been bombed by the same group of people bombing Europe. Where do these people get their next adrenaline rush after bombing embassys loses its thrill: the United States of America itself.

War is totally justified. All these bombings mentioned above have had no aggressive response. How many more bombings does it take before war is a valid response? The answer: -100. THe fact is, no reprisal to the attacks made the terrorist grow brave. An aggressive response is totally necessary. Not only is it suppressing present initiatives for terrorism, it is supressing future initiatives as well.

I am going to tell you something that might strike your fancy. While I was in NY, I was talking with some people, and just asked them if the supported the war after seeing first hand the events of 9/11. I was suprised to hear that all of them had supported the war. I spoke to only 30 people, and about 18 of them were random. Still, we here on the west coast were so far and distant from those events. It is easy for us who are sooo distant to say that there is another alternative to ridding the earth of terrorism. We all had our parents come home that day. We didnt look out the classroom window to see two planes fly into buildings.

To hit on FDR. Very cunning man indeed. Why do you think he was in office for almost three terms! Again, I will ask, why did he let a major port be bombed? Major carriers were destroyed. Why not let them bomb some crappy barrack? Again, questions that need answers.

I would again urge you to follow the link about 911 where I provided. Almost all of your questions will be answered. I am drunk right now so all other respones shall wait for later today.

Another link hopefully you will be more familiar with the situation before we start discussing. http://slate.msn.com/id/2088092

[jahannam]

War is totally justified. All these bombings mentioned above have had no aggressive response.

allright... I know this thread isn't really my specialty.. but ummm
what do the terrorist bombings have to do with Saddam Hussein and the Government of Iraq again? why did America attack a GOVERNMENT responding to an organization that has NOTHING to do with that government???
I thought the war had other motives...
you keep changing what you say surfer...
oh and bad news there buddy... the bombings aren't gonna stop... the war made things worse... antiamericans' hatred towards America after this war just got worse... so don't feel so "over safe"...
war has never solved complications.

[Anonymouse]

First of all, I would like to request that I debate with you rather than a proffessor. With that said, here we go.

Lets focus on 9/11 first. What the media does is seperate from what politicans do. They are their own. A story is a story. They always jump to conclusions. They did in the Truman election, and they jumped to conclusions in this past presidential election. Now, for one moment, think about what was bombed. The first major target...WTC. The WTC is the economic base for the world, and a strong symbol of capital, and economic strength for our country. A powerful message was sent in bombing such a thing. Tis the reason for some of the economic downfall our country is experiencing. The next thing that was bombed...the Pentagon. Home and symbol of our nations defense. That building houses the offices of the most intelligent generals, engineers; not to mention it houses the james bond style technology that monitors our safety. Why would President Bush allow these two extremely important facilities be completely and partially destroyed. I was in NYC this past month, and damn, it is extremely crowded, the comotion during 9/11 must have been beyond our scope of crowded and most other peoples for that matter. Why not allow them to bomb somewhere else? Those were the worst things that could have been bombed....besides the white house and my house.

First off, you begin by very vague and unsubstantiated assertions. No where, and in no court of law was it ever proven as to who bombed what. We just assumed things. The first thing I heard most politicians and media outlets yell right after the events were "Terrorist". I don't know why Bush would allow such things to happen but it's not past the scope of any of the leaders of nation states to allow their own to suffer to further their own ends. In fact there is a concise history of U.S. biological and chemical warfare against its own people. You will have a hard time accepting this as you do the fact that there is plenty of evidence that suggests negligence and with the "war on terrorism" and the profit that is being made, as well as the civil liberties that are eroding, I can only see that it wasn't just negligence that took part on 911, but rather it was a careful plan, so intricate so powerful that the highest orders of our nation were involved.

The reason people were able to jump to conclusions is quite simple. I will start with the simplistic and work my way up.

With FEW exceptions, members participating in terrorist activities are usually those of Middle Eastern descent, with a Muslim backround. The only exception I can think of, is the Oklahoma bombing. You can present to me three more exceptions of TERROR. I mean terrorist attacks, not someone bombing a bank vault to rob, I mean a terrorist bombing something strictly to instill fear into the minds of others.

First of all you just admit here you jumped to conclusions. Without any evidence or CERTAINTY as it is certainty which makes something a truth, there can be no just call. For a thing to be certain, it must have evidence. Thus if it lacks evidence, it is uncertain. There is an air of uncertainty surrounding the events of 911 and even the recent congressional report on the event had alot of loose ends and unanswered questions, most likely from higher powers dictating how things should be to told to the masses in order to cover their ends. Of course I don't expect people to buy into this "conspiracy" point of view that things happen, not by chance, but rather because of planning and secrecy, in short, a conspiracy.

For you to say that most of the "TERRORISTS" are Middle Eastern, automatically puts you in line with the present neoconservatives who like to create "us vs them" and "we are good they are evil" labels. Terrorism can involve anyone and it all depends on your point of view and from what side you are viewing the problem. Terrorists exist in all countries and in all nations, and they are those who are defined as "terrorists" by the powers that be. For now the U.S. and Israel are the ones sitting on the ivory tower so they get to have leverage over deciding who is a terrorist and thus you spout what they imbue. Right now there are terrorists in every part of the world from Ireland to China, to Russia, to Phillipines, to Africa, to South America. To say that "Terrorists" are middle eastern is attributing that with culture, that is to say, no one that isn't Middle Eastern can be a terrorist, and that is false. So with that logic, people in Ireland who resort to "terrorist acts" against the government aren't really terrorist in the truest sense of the word because thats already taken by the Middle Easterners, they can have the label of "trouble maker".

Looking at the definition of terrorism we see that it means the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce people or governments . So with that stated, according to our definition, if you look at the U.S. from the Middle Eastern's point of view, the U.S. is just as guilty of terrorism because it uses violence and coercion to intimidate other people or governments, and to Middle Easterners they are defending their home and way of live against an intruder that is killing them and their way of life. What would you do? In this case it wants to intimidate and subjugate the people it calls "terrorists" namely the Middle East, as that is the last holdout against U.S. global hegemony.

The next question you have to ask is WHY these Middle Easterners choose to bomb Israel and America. Again we here many cliche arguments such as "they hate our freedom and culture". But those type of answers are drawn up and erected exactly by the same people who are conducting this war of attrition. Such easy answers prevent us from questioning both the government and ourselves and our gullibility. It's always easier to accept things at face value and without scrutiny, as opposed to critical thinking, questioning, and the possible uncomfrortable answers that we will get if we choose to follow the path of critical thinking. And more often than not, these uncomfortable answers are a threat to our mind, which is a prison that has been shaped by certain ideologies and isms, from every orifice of communication since birth. The reason the "terrorists" hate us again, for the thousandth time on this forum and others as well, is because of our support for Israel and Zionism, and our continued presence in the Middle East, bombing them and killing them for oil, not to fuel our cars, but to fuel the U.S. Military machine that is bent on global domination, and I'm not even counting the U.S. weapons and dollars that Israel spends on killing innocent people.

War is totally justified. All these bombings mentioned above have had no aggressive response. How many more bombings does it take before war is a valid response? The answer: -100. THe fact is, no reprisal to the attacks made the terrorist grow brave. An aggressive response is totally necessary. Not only is it suppressing present initiatives for terrorism, it is supressing future initiatives as well.

I fail to see how war is justified. First of all, who is this war against? An enemy that we can't see? This war that has an ever changing name, and no defined battlefield or mission. It's really no ordinary war, its meant to be a long conflict such as the Cold War, to further erode our civil liberties here, to further U.S. global interests abroad. This is a recipe for decadence.

To start things off, here are many unanswered questions about 911 and alot of missing evidence and no certainty has been established, especially not in any court of law. Immediately after Bush declares his war on Afghanistan, and the masses little knowing that for months the oil companies here, such as Unocal had been in negotiations with the Taliban for an oil pipeline, and things went awry eventually. There is a lot of detail to it which I'll avoid right now to save disk space and time, but a month prior to Sept 11. The whole "war on terrorism" of a greater Pax Americana was planned years ago, as I've already mentioned, and you've conveniently ignored. All you have to do is put the puzzle pieces together.

Furthermore, the 911 tragedy was used to justify America's further invasion of Iraq, bombing and killing innocents over there. And you wonder why the world hates America, especially Middle Easterners? What evidence did their exist that links Bin Laden or 911 with Saddam. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence linking 911 to bin Laden. Do you see where the questioning is going? It's going to uncharted territories of uncertainty, and this brings into question the motives of our government, such as why was the Patriot Act, passed so quickly, by Congress, WITHOUT EVEN READING IT? They just signed away your liberties, and now we have monkey show trials for "suspected terrorist" which you don't even hear about it on the news, and all this mindless flag waving prevents people from seeing the truth, that the only ones that profit from "war", is the government, financially and politically. Then you ask yourself that if this really is about "national survival" why is this country sacrificing its purpose, going to war against a contrived enemy. Its so funny to me for people to believe anything the media or government says, because really, this is so Orwellian in all its corners, that I only can laugh at how "Big Brother" wants to go to an endless war. YAAAAY FOR OCEANIA!

When a recent poll shows that a majority of the people believe Saddam had involvement in 911, that really tells you something about the sheep like quality of the masses, and how politics thrives on the collectives. It stifles and punishes individuals who dare to question the system and the war plan of the party, but the masses are what it thrives on.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030906.wpoll0906/BNStory/International/

This poll shows that 70% believe that Saddam had something to do with 911. What justifies such a belief? I personally don't know since there is no evidence, but you can bet that countless hours, days, months, and years of non stop references to "terrorism", "Iraq", "Saddam", "weapons of masses destruction", all create a careful and thorough illusion, that exposed to it enough, you would think its true, just like if you hear blue is red long enough you'll believe blue is red. That is the beauty of the mind, and the manipulators know how to manipulate it.

To touch up on some questions that I hoped you read in the link I provided in one of my earlier posts before this:

How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC but the plane’s black recording boxes designed to withstand crashes were damaged beyond use?

Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in the past?

Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?

Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn’t everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal security?

Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, “…the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board.” Why the discrepancy?

As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names, how did the government know which were the hijackers?

Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were responsible?

Why were none of the named hijacker’s names on any of the passenger list? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?

You can find these and more questions here.

http://www.jimmarrs.com/view/view102301.html

I am going to tell you something that might strike your fancy. While I was in NY, I was talking with some people, and just asked them if the supported the war after seeing first hand the events of 9/11. I was suprised to hear that all of them had supported the war. I spoke to only 30 people, and about 18 of them were random. Still, we here on the west coast were so far and distant from those events. It is easy for us who are sooo distant to say that there is another alternative to ridding the earth of terrorism. We all had our parents come home that day. We didnt look out the classroom window to see two planes fly into buildings.

Isn't it strange that the people who lost no one in this tragedy, such as politicians, and the average folk, were quick to jump to "WAR" and "revenge", but the actual people who lost family and friends were the voice of reason? I strongly urge you to read "WAR PLAN IRAQ: Ten Reasons Against War On Iraq" by Milan Rai. In it the author does an incredible job of collecting some of the most moving statements from Sept 11 survivors or families of those who lost loved ones. All of them were against war.

To hit on FDR. Very cunning man indeed. Why do you think he was in office for almost three terms! Again, I will ask, why did he let a major port be bombed? Major carriers were destroyed. Why not let them bomb some crappy barrack? Again, questions that need answers.

Why? Because to put it plainly he had war aspirations from the start. It was no secret that he wanted to join the war, but Germany didn't want the U.S. involved and Hitler made sure he didn't do anything to get the U.S. involved, so what Roosevelt thought is, if he can't enter the war through the front door, he might as well try the back door. The reason Pearl Harbor was allowed because it was devastating enough to allow him to go to full scale war. I honestly admit I am speculating on why it was Pearl Harbor that was allowed to be bombed, but the point is, it was because of Roosevelts war aspirations, and this can be seen in his foreign policy prior to U.S. involvement.

To quote Robert Smith Thompson from the book I already mentioned:

"In the mid-1930s, Congress had passed a series of neutrality acts, requiring belligerent countries to pay cash for whatever they bought in the States and to ship such goods in their own vessels (the cash-and-carry principle) -- and requiring the president, when two foreign countries were in a state of war, to declare an arms embargo. Since Japan could produce its own weapons, however, and China could not, having to make purchases overseas, an embargo would hurt China more than it would hurt Japan. So Roosevelt made a move that was not a move. He decided that he would "find" no war. He would wink at the sale of arms to China."

Roosevelts one sided neutrality was obvious, as early as 1937 the U.S. aid to China steadily increased, with continued violations of U.S. neutrality acts, as well as helping Britain, when it was at war with Germany, knowingly, while it declared "neutrality".

When in 1938 the DC-2 aircraft was shot down over China, with an American pilot inside, all the passengers inside were killed by Japanese. But what did an American plane and pilot have business in China, knowing that it is at war with Japan? Few Americans knew the details behind it, and still do. While this particular plane was unarmed, other planes had been flying fuel and weapons to China. This only goes to show that there are reasons as to why things happen, not because "they hate us".

Cancelling the 1911 trade agreement with Japan in 1939, and adding on more trade embargoes on Japan, the U.S. was clearly at war with Japan, not militarilty but economically. And I'm sure you know that on July 26, 1941 Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. If this isn't inciting the Japanese I don't know what is.

[patlajan]

A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE

[surferarmo]

War is totally justified. All these bombings mentioned above have had no aggressive response.

allright... I know this thread isn't really my specialty.. but ummm
what do the terrorist bombings have to do with Saddam Hussein and the Government of Iraq again? why did America attack a GOVERNMENT responding to an organization that has NOTHING to do with that government???
I thought the war had other motives...
you keep changing what you say surfer...
oh and bad news there buddy... the bombings aren't gonna stop... the war made things worse... antiamericans' hatred towards America after this war just got worse... so don't feel so "over safe"...
war has never solved complications.

You admitted yourself pathetic and I will confirm it for you. THey dont have to do anything with that specific event. I dont change my mind. I said there were political motives and gains for us. You are putting words in my mouth and taking small insignificant segmants from context and blowing them our of proportion. War didnt make things worse. Do you think they would have gotten better by letting more buildings get bombed? Even if you believe in our conspiracy shaken friend, you would believe that we knew of the events of 9/11 before they happened (bullxxxx). If you believe that, then you would believe that we could have prevented things, then hey, maybe you might believe that the President knows something of Sadam and his network, and we are simply preventing it. Somethign of that catastrophic signifigance has not been witnessed by you. Dont type, you make yourself look more and more pathetic every time you do.

You obviously have not seen ground zero. Your ignorant mind is filled with bliss. Immaturity will have to leave you some day.

[surferarmo]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/6/130037.shtml

[surferarmo]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/94839.shtml

Read this and get a clue. Let your ignorance be washed away with this article. All your questions will be answered.

[xBaron Dants]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...15/94839.shtml

Read this and get a clue. Let your ignorance be washed away with this article. All your questions will be answered.

Now get back to the other thread on Soviet Armenia and "wash away my ignorance". :P