NEWS FLASH!!

[iain]

[Dru]

a friend of mine is marching in SF

 

here is something clipped from his email

 

conservatives may close mind and skip to the next post

 

Most intersections downtown were being blocked. The cops were VERY

aggressive, they coraled roughly 300 people around the stock exchange

in police pens gaurded by fences and cops who need anger management

classes. Cop shoved me down because I was riding my bike on the road

and he wanted me on the sidewalk. Then he started dragging fallen me

and bike, I told him he had no right to touch me, the law was that

bikes are supposed to go in the road, & that he should be ashamed of

himself. They said today the law is different. After the civic center

NO-war, there was a march down market and another march down mission.

Someone was popping all the fire hydrants so I got taken by suprise

and completelly soaked.

 

Later we followed the Black Block, a group of 350+ hackers, friends,

and family, most dressed in black but some in suits with bout 20

large Black and red flags. It was a peaceful march. All of a sudden a

hoarde of cops in full riot gear, batons batting, came running down

the street. They were making a sweep and no one could get passed

them. I was on my bike so rode the other direction but another 100

cops came running from that direction so no one could get away. They

had us coralled and made everyone sit down while they tried to get a

buss out of the way. After a while they rushed us and started

swinging. There was some guy on the ground getting pummelled by

around 5 cops and I saw a girl getting dragged down the street by her

hair surrounded by around 7 cops tearing at her. Truckloads of cops

were arriving, in full riot gear and violent. We were backed up

against a building so a couple people broke one of the windows and

escaped. A girl was crying on the ground.

 

Many more cops and muni buses arrived, they began hauling everyone

away, zippertied hands behind the back. They told us we were being

charged with rioting and refusal to disperse even though they

wouldn't let anyone disperse. Later they changed the charges

to 'holding up traffic' even though they held up traffic an ice age

longer than we ever would have.

 

They brought us to peir 39 and had us sitting there in the muni bus

for a couple hrs, my guess is to keep us from protesting. At this

point they sent in the "good cops" who tried to joke and be all

friendly. Some guy smuggled a nail clipper in his underpants so every

one clipped off thier zippertie handcuffs.

 

In the day around 2000 people got arrested, one of the cops said

later.

 

As a denial of service attack, I suppose traffice blockage worked but

with time, it is forgotten and the domineering idiots who use

violence as a method of control to get their job done will strike

again at the unwarey unless they get eaten by cockroaches. someone

recommended breaking into their laundry service and dying their

uniforms pink.

 

Meanwhile what we see on TV is dust clouds surrounding bagdad and

propaganda about "our brave boys" (blowing the legs off Iraqis).

 

I have never been much of a marcher or politico so this view of our

police state was all new to me. Its amazing how easy it is for those

with weapons to cow a huge group of people. I can understand how they

sent so many jews off without much protest. They are very good at

taking out the weakest link, divide and conquer, fear tactics. They

are trained for it and they are used to people saying ok. In order to

stand up to bullies, Bow down not to your own fear. You may get

killed or hurt anyways and then their will be a new batch of humans

living their lives in your home.

[allthumbs]

A friend of mine is in harms way, preserving freedom and world peace. Best wishes to Mike Adamson.

[allthumbs]

send all anti-war zealots to france

[Dru]

trask said:

A friend of mine is in harms way, preserving freedom and world peace. Best wishes to Mike Adamson.

 

 

hey mike hope you make it thru alive and uninjured!

[tomcat]

Hey Mike, I don't know you but take a shot at Saddam for me!

[AlpineK]

tomcat said:

 

I still haven't seen any logical arguments.

 

No, you just haven't seen any arguments you agree with.

 

North Korea has nukes and the means to deliver them, but we aren't going to war with them.

 

Hmmm NK doesn't have any oil.

[tomcat]

Still no logical arguments.

 

On a sidenote, turn it to channel 5 and watch Saddam get BOMBED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[allthumbs]

the accuracy is phenomenal. only military targets being hit.

[Dru]

they take out the chinese embassy yet

[allthumbs]

Nope, Gore is there having tea and rice.

[mattp]

Tom-

 

Before I begin my tirade, I should commend you for sticking with it here. You have largely been abandoned by your other pro-war friends on this site. Now for the tirade:

 

You complain that the arguments against the war are "inflammatory" and "Poignant" arguments which are largely inaccurate. Lets look at some of the arguments FOR the war:

 

1. The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraq had an active nuclear program, and said he was "3 months away from having the bomb" at a time when all experts agreed that there was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq. This was not a mistake - but an outright lie. And it is a lie that has been believed by large numbers of the American people because they don't bother reading newspapers and aren't interested in knowing the truth. If anything here, I would say it is the pro-war Americans who cannot think for their selves.

 

2. The Bush administration repeatedly asserts that Iraq arms and harbors terrorists. They have not shown a single current example of this. The reported meeting between the Iraqi's and al Queda was shown never to have existed. As a result of these repeated and unsubstantiated allegations, recent polls have shown that over half the American people have even concluded that Iraq was behind 9-11. Again, I would say this is an example of how the pro-war Americans are the ones who do not want to consider the facts.

 

3. Supporters of the war assert that this operation is going to make us safer because it will deter terrorism. Please explain to me how this is going to work? I think you suggested that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq may help reduce support for terrorism in the Middle East, but we sure don't see any progress toward democracy in Afghanistan and I highly doubt we will see it in Iraq. The country is really at least three countries in one and within its borders there is a mini-Kurd nation in the north, and a large Sunni bedouin population in the south, with mostly Shiites in the center and in the larger cities; it has thousands of years of war-torn history and tribal strugggle, characterized by very tight political rule. This is not a stable foundation for democracy and I do not think we are going to see some magical transformation in the near future. If you think we are going to establish a democracy there, you are dreaming. Even if we were somehow able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, please explain to me how invading Iraq is going to pacify militant Islamics who hate the U.S., don't want western values to erase their culture, and believe that we are an evil agressive power. I just don't get it.

 

By the way, Tom, nice cut and past job. Your wel-written post on page 12 came from here: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N11/eaton_col_.11c.html

You deride the anti-war folks who repeat what they read elsewhere, but you failed to cite your source here -- reprinted word-for-word. It almost appears that you tried to suggest you wrote all of that yourself. And you complain that people who are against the war simply recycle other's arguments.

 

Stick with it, Tom. Let's hear what you have to say because you make some good points.

[fleblebleb]

tomcat said:

AlpineK said:

No Tom you made the statements. you need to cite your sources.

 

Just think what would happen if some scientist came out with a new theory and then told everyone to look up his references.

 

 

Cite WHICH sources AlpineK? You name them, I'll cite them.

 

It's hard to believe that the only thing preventing you from presenting logical rebuttals is the notion that I didn't cite my sources. In my opinion, there are no sources to cite in the above posts. If you feel differently, point me to the fact in question and, like I said, I would be more than happy to cite a legitimate source. But please don't let this affect your ability to argue logically. A good debator will have no problem picking apart a counter argument regardless of whether or not sources have been cited for the point they're arguing against.

 

Edit : And while we're on the subject of citing sources, I want to see sources cited for the war for oil argument.

 

Heh, I tried to talk to you without calling you names, and I did pick apart one of your arguments which was, to put it mildly, not exactly carefully constructed, and boy did you bounce back from that one Not even a word to dispute what I said Tom? Hmm, could it be that you're beaten, and that it's just easier to yell back at the other people? Too bad you're showing off as a complete idiot in the last exchange as well, eh? You agree to cite your sources if we point them out to you, that's damn nice of you isn't it?

 

Saddle up Tom, it's back to the cavalry with you

[tomcat]

fleblebleb, what are you talking about? I rebutted your comments with the article I copied and pasted (see mattp comments above your last post).

 

You caught me matt .. I couldn't resist bringing such a powerfully written article to this thread. Now you've got my sources cited, let's hear some responses!

 

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

It was oh-so-hard to figure out that you didn't pen ten well-reasoned-and-researched paragraphs in five minutes. Thank goodness you came clean!

 

[Jim]

Hey tom, I don't think there are any "facts" in the article that you cut and pasted. It's an opinion piece written by a graduate student in chemistry. No exactly a primary source.

[allison]

Plagarism? Nice touch!

[fleblebleb]

tomcat said:

fleblebleb, what are you talking about? I rebutted your comments with the article I copied and pasted (see mattp comments above your last post).

 

You caught me matt .. I couldn't resist bringing such a powerfully written article to this thread. Now you've got my sources cited, let's hear some responses!

 

 

Hah-haha, I found the article so stupid and baseless that I thought you'd written it!

 

Go work on some horsemanship skills Tom! Yee-haw!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Do you guys smell that?

 

It smells like ... lost credibility.

[fleblebleb]

Yes, with a taint of horse manure

[tomcat]

mattp said:

Tom-

 

Before I begin my tirade, I should commend you for sticking with it here. You have largely been abandoned by your other pro-war friends on this site. Now for the tirade:

 

You complain that the arguments against the war are "inflammatory" and "Poignant" arguments which are largely inaccurate. Lets look at some of the arguments FOR the war:

 

1. The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraq had an active nuclear program, and said he was "3 months away from having the bomb" at a time when all experts agreed that there was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq. This was not a mistake - but an outright lie. And it is a lie that has been believed by large numbers of the American people because they don't bother reading newspapers and aren't interested in knowing the truth. If anything here, I would say it is the pro-war Americans who cannot think for their selves.

 

2. The Bush administration repeatedly asserts that Iraq arms and harbors terrorists. They have not shown a single current example of this. The reported meeting between the Iraqi's and al Queda was shown never to have existed. As a result of these repeated and unsubstantiated allegations, recent polls have shown that over half the American people have even concluded that Iraq was behind 9-11. Again, I would say this is an example of how the pro-war Americans are the ones who do not want to consider the facts.

 

3. Supporters of the war assert that this operation is going to make us safer because it will deter terrorism. Please explain to me how this is going to work? I think you suggested that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq may help reduce support for terrorism in the Middle East, but we sure don't see any progress toward democracy in Afghanistan and I highly doubt we will see it in Iraq. The country is really at least three countries in one and within its borders there is a mini-Kurd nation in the north, and a large Sunni bedouin population in the south, with mostly Shiites in the center and in the larger cities; it has thousands of years of war-torn history and tribal strugggle, characterized by very tight political rule. This is not a stable foundation for democracy and I do not think we are going to see some magical transformation in the near future. If you think we are going to establish a democracy there, you are dreaming. Even if we were somehow able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, please explain to me how invading Iraq is going to pacify militant Islamics who hate the U.S., don't want western values to erase their culture, and believe that we are an evil agressive power. I just don't get it.

 

By the way, Tom, nice cut and past job. Your wel-written post on page 12 came from here: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N11/eaton_col_.11c.html

You deride the anti-war folks who repeat what they read elsewhere, but you failed to cite your source here – reprinted word-for-word. It almost appears that you tried to suggest you wrote all of that yourself. And you complain that people who are against the war simply recycle other's arguments.

 

Stick with it, Tom. Let's hear what you have to say because you make some good points.

 

Rebuttal :

 

Point 1) Who lied and told you Iraq doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? Read the following link by the Nuclear Control Institute which may help to clear things up for you. http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq511.htm Of particular note here is the fact that Iraq maintains large stockpiles of Uranium .. of which over 3 tons are unaccounted for in their weapons declarations.

 

Point 2) Perhaps you missed Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations a few weeks back which CLEARLY outlined how Iraq has harbored terrorists. The evidence of this is quite clear. I will attempt to find a source on the net.

 

Point 3) I fail to see how this will not make us safer? Have you seen how this shock and awe campaign has been unfolding today? The 'war' has almost already been won! I don't know about you, but if I meet someone and they kick my ass very badly, I try and avoid them in the future. Same goes for international muscle. What makes you think that once the world sees what kind of damage we inflict upon Iraq, and with great ease, that they will escalate efforts to terrorize us? What kind of flawed logic is that?

 

You use the example of the Afghanistan conflict, saying that, "we sure don't see any progress toward democracy in Afghanistan and I highly doubt we will see it in Iraq". I've got news for you .. the purpose of the Afghani invasion was not to remove the Afghani regime, but to destroy Al-Quaeda. Therefore, you cannot realistically compare the results of the current Iraqi conflict with that of Afghanistan.

 

My advice is wait until the war is over, and then tell me if this didn't work. If these actions don't prevent another September 11th, I'll eat my words and wear leather chaps and a jockstrap to the next Pub Club.

[tomcat]

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

Do you guys smell that?

 

It smells like ... lost credibility.

 

I don't see your brilliant points being brought up here .. bring them to the table so I can argue them just like I've rebuked the rest! That is if you're not all talk.

[fleblebleb]

Bullshit Tom. You're applying playground logic to international politics.

 

Oops, should have said horseshit

[allthumbs]

Give Up Hippies-

 

The writing's on the wall. Surrender now and save face. You're feeble taunts at this juncture are pointless. This is a glorious day for freedom. Do the honorable thing and stop protesting and enjoy the freedoms our brave military provides for you.

[tomcat]

fleblebleb said:

Bullshit Tom. You're applying playground logic to international politics.

 

Oops, should have said horseshit

 

Please please point out my "playground logic". I challenge you to bring that to the table .. where is my playground logic at fleblebleb? I understand you are frustrated with your lack of understanding concerning the current Iraq invasion, but don't take it out on those of us who are attempting to uncloud your brain.