you have 4 lines, and they each refer almost directly to collective action and demonstrations
also, where did I say that protest was going to change the world. My point was more that it is retarded to just say "oh well, those in power will rule, nothing we can do about it"
but then, I don't believe protests are useless anyways. re: the tea party. There are tons of examples like this, where major political changes have happened because people have taken some kind of action. Hell, we have a word for mass scale versions of this, re: revolution.
like, you think the protest movement against vietnam had no effect? you think Micheal Moore or Matt Taibbi have had no impact on people? Wikileaks?
seriously? nono, you are right, no way to fight the powerful at all, thats why it was so easy to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, no way to fight back against the will of the rich.
Originally posted by inimalist
you have 4 lines, and they each refer almost directly to collective action and demonstrations
It seems like you didn't read this part:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Delete everything after the first sentence and my point still stands with both definitions.
Originally posted by inimalist
also, where did I say that protest was going to change the world. My point was more that it is retarded to just say "oh well, those in power will rule, nothing we can do about it"
No, your point was letting those in power continue to do whatever they want without even a little protest. There's very little difference in what you're saying above and what you originally said, however. I just took issue with you using "protest" regardless of the two definitions being submitted, as a productive or efficient mechanism of change.
Originally posted by inimalist
but then, I don't believe protests are useless anyways. re: the tea party. There are tons of examples like this, where major political changes have happened because people have taken some kind of action. Hell, we have a word for mass scale versions of this, re: revolution.
Everything you've stated here is something I've stated in direct or indirect manners.
Originally posted by inimalist
like, you think the protest movement against vietnam had [b]no effect? you think Micheal Moore or Matt Taibbi have had no impact on people? Wikileaks?[/B]
This is a red herring and irrelevant to the points I've made.
Originally posted by inimalist
seriously? nono, you are right, no way to fight the powerful at all, thats why it was so easy to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, no way to fight back against the will of the rich.
You are using a strawman to make the same point that you've made already.
Additionally, you've stated that I was using the wrong definition of protest and then proceeded to outline reasons that were against this supposed wrong defintion of "protest." Despite that, I've made it possible, in a very easy manner, to use both definitions with just a single sentence, and still make the same point.
Originally posted by Darth JelloBreaking news reporting that Osama Bin Laden was killed in US bombing and they have his body.
I have absolutely no opinion over this topic. I truly don't. I did, however, stumble across an Alex Jones video on YouTube during all the media press when the story first broke out. It may have merit, but I'm not sure. I'm reserving my opinion for a later date.
Originally posted by inimalist
I expressed disbelief that they would have sought out to kill him earlier in this thread and have posted a series of Greenwald articles (I will post another he wrote Friday in a moment) of a similar persuasion.While there are clear questions surrounding the "whys" of the operation, I have yet to see anything that calls into question the idea that Bin Laden is really dead, or that he was killed at some other time. It seems, thus far, that most of the administration lies have been to make it look like Bin Laden resisted arrest, whereas it is most likely this was an extrajudicial execution.
Yeah lets ignore the conspiracy of him dying earlier like the Mod said.
In which case this obviously was an execution. I knew that before the story kept changing, because if you know where someone is, and he doesn't know your coming, its not difficult at all to capture him alive!
He'd be surrounded. Even if he had a weapon (which it seems he didn't), he can be shot in the leg, or in other places where he would not be killed but just stopped. And no I dn't think that'd be difficult considering they can shoot him in the head without difficulty.
But they were basically told they could just shoot him dead, and that would be fine.
Well such a Wanted and Controversial man should have been taken alive and put in front of an international court for the crimes hes accused of. Who knows he might have even admitted what he did in court. But that would show the difference in morals between us and terrorists.
Unfortunately as it stands, the way we are fighting, invading, occupying and executing without trials, it is hard to make that distinction.
Originally posted by inimalist
you have 4 lines, and they each refer almost directly to collective action and demonstrationsalso, where did I say that protest was going to change the world. My point was more that it is retarded to just say "oh well, those in power will rule, nothing we can do about it"
but then, I don't believe protests are useless anyways. re: the tea party. There are tons of examples like this, where major political changes have happened because people have taken some kind of action. Hell, we have a word for mass scale versions of this, re: revolution.
like, you think the protest movement against vietnam had [b]no
effect? you think Micheal Moore or Matt Taibbi have had no impact on people? Wikileaks?seriously? nono, you are right, no way to fight the powerful at all, thats why it was so easy to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, no way to fight back against the will of the rich. [/B]
Yep this I agree with. In the UK a couple of decades ago the Poll Tax was abolished when everyone came and portested (well more like rioted) but basically refused to accept it.
Same goes for the Aparthied in South Africa. It was a mass movement internationally which refused to accept it which caused it to end.
So we should never have a defeatist attitude.
Theres no reason to treat Bin Laden any differently to this guy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13425546
In fact he seems to be responsible for a mass murder on a much larger scale than anything Bin Laden was accused of. And yet this guy was imprisoned and put to a UN trial. When found guilty he was given a sentence, which was not even death.
On the other hand Usama Bin Laden, a man accused of mass murder but to a much much lesser degree was never imprisoned, never put on trial, just plain out executed.
Originally posted by inimalist
nobody disagrees with that, though...
Really??
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
finally got him... i am so glad
Originally posted by chomperx9
Thank God, Hope the F&%^ing Terrorist Burns in HELL
Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Thank Goodness! Also, a big F U to all the Europeans, Canadians, and Liberals that supported this A-Hole for years and calling us Americans Killers and Murders.There is your friggin Martyr now....have fun battling the radicals muslims in your own backyard.
Im sure theres a lot more. That was just from a quick glance of the first 2 pages.
Originally posted by inimalistIs that some kind of turn the tables thing? i have no idea what youre talking about.
god, stop trolling me
Originally posted by DARTH POWERHow does that have anything to do with your point?
Really??Im sure theres a lot more. That was just from a quick glance of the first 2 pages.