's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

the war...rare info(40 posts)

the war...rare infoishmael
Nov 2, 2001 10:40 AM
Another article by Indian feminist author Arundhati Roy

War Is Peace
The world doesn't have to choose between the Taliban and the US government.
All the beauty of the world-literature, music, art-lies between these two
fundamentalist poles.
Arundhati Roy
Oct 18

As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on Sunday, October 7,2001, the US
government, backed by the International Coalition against Terror (the new,
amenable surrogate for the United Nations), launched air strikes against
Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images of Cruise
missiles, stealth bombers, Tomahawks, 'bunker-busting' missiles and Mark 82
high-drag bombs. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and
stopped clamouring for new video games.

The UN, reduced now to an ineffective abbreviation, wasn't even asked to
mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, "The US acts
multilaterally when it can, and unilaterally when it must.") The 'evidence'
against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the 'Coalition'. After
conferring, they announced that it didn't matter whether or not the
'evidence' would stand up in a court of law. Thus, in an instant, were
centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed.

Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed
by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance
movements-or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognized
government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and
Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world.
Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against,
the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington.

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed.
Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to
shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as
ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. On both
sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the
actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both
countries share a common bond-they have to live with the phenomenon of
blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on
Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in
America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts.

There is no easy way out of the spiraling morass of terror and brutality
that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human race to hold
still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and
modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world forever. Freedom,
progress, wealth, technology, war-these words have taken on new meaning.
Governments have to acknowledge this transformation, and approach their new
tasks with a modicum of honesty and humility. Unfortunately, up to now,
there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the
International Coalition. Or the Taliban.

When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said, "We're a
peaceful nation." America's favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also
holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: "We're a
peaceful people."

So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace. Speaking at
the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush said: "This is our
calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free
nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that
reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will
not tire."

Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with-and
bombed-since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53); Korea (1950-53);
Guatemala (1954, 1967 -69); Indonesia (1958); Cuba (1959-60); the Belgian
Congo (1964); Peru (1965); Laos (1964-73); Vietnam (1961-73); Cambodia
(1969-70); Grenada (1983); Libya (1986); El Salvador (1980s); Nicaragua
(1980s); Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998);
Yugoslavia (1999). And now Afghanistan.

Certainly it does not tire-this, the Most Free nation in the world. What
freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech,
religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences
(well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside
its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate-usually in the
service of America's real religion, the 'free market'. So when the US
government christens a war 'Operation Infinite Justice', or 'Operation
Enduring Freedom', we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear.
Because we know that Infinite Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for
others. And Enduring Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others.

The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest
countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all
of the world's weapons, they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of
mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most
wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and
human rights violations in modern history, and have sponsored, armed, and
financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have
worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its
appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league.

The Taliban was compounded in the crumbling crucible of rubble, heroin, and
landmines in the backwash of the Cold War. Its oldest leaders are in their
early 40s. Many of them are disfigured and handicapped, missing an eye, an
arm or a leg. They grew up in a society scarred and devastated by war.
Between the Soviet Union and America, over 20 years, about $45 billion worth
of arms and ammunition was poured into Afghanistan. The latest weaponry was
the only shard of modernity to intrude upon a thoroughly medieval society.
Young boys-many of them orphans-who grew up in those times, had guns for
toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced
the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone,
rape, and brutalize women; they don't seem to know what else to do with
them. Years of war have stripped them of gentleness, inured them to kindness
and human compassion. They dance to the percussive rhythms of bombs raining
down around them. Now they've turned their monstrosity on their own people.

With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have
to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human
civilization-our art, our music, our literature-lies beyond these two
fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little chance that the people
of the world can all become middle-class consumers as there is that they'll
all embrace any one particular religion. The issue is not about Good vs Evil
or Islam vs Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to
accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony-every
kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious, and cultural.
Any ecologist will tell you how dangerous and fragile a monoculture is. A
hegemonic world is like having a government without a healthy opposition. It
becomes a kind of dictatorship. It's like putting a plastic bag over the
world, and preventing it from breathing. Eventually, it will be torn open.

One and a half million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of
conflict that preceded this new war. Afghanistan was reduced to rubble, and
now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. By the second day of the
air strikes, US pilots were returning to their bases without dropping their
assigned payload of bombs. As one pilot put it, Afghanistan is "not a
target-rich environment". At a press briefing at the Pentagon, Donald
Rumsfeld, US defense secretary, was asked if America had run out of targets.

"First we're going to re-hit targets," he said, "and second, we're not
running out of targets, Afghanistan is..." This was greeted with gales of
laughter in the Briefing Room. By the third day of the strikes, the US
defense department boasted that it had "achieved air supremacy over
Afghanistan". (Did they mean that they had destroyed both, or maybe all 16,
of Afghanistan's planes?)

On the ground in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance-the Taliban's old enemy,
and therefore the International Coalition's newest friend-is making headway
in its push to capture Kabul. (For the archives, let it be said that the
Northern Alliance's track record is not very different from the Taliban's.
But for now, because it's inconvenient, that little detail is being glossed
over.) The visible, moderate, "acceptable" leader of the Alliance, Ahmed
Shah Masood, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September. The
rest of the Northern Alliance is a brittle confederation of brutal warlords,
ex-communists, and unbending clerics. It is a disparate group divided along
ethnic lines, some of whom have tasted power in Afghanistan in the past.
Until the US air strikes, the Northern Alliance controlled about 5 per cent
of the geographical area of Afghanistan. Now, with the Coalition's help and
'air cover', it is poised to topple the Taliban. Meanwhile, Taliban
soldiers, sensing imminent defeat, have begun to defect to the Alliance. So
the fighting forces are busy switching sides and changing uniforms. But in
an enterprise as cynical as this one, it seems to matter hardly at all. Love
is hate, north is south, peace is war.
Among the global powers, there is talk of 'putting in a representative
government'. Or, on the other hand, of 'restoring' the Kingdom to
Afghanistan's 89-year-old former king, Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile in
Rome since 1973. That's the way the game goes-support Saddam Hussein, then
'take him out'; finance the mujahideen, then bomb them to smithereens; put
in Zahir Shah and see if he's going to be a good boy. (Is it possible to
'put in' a representative government? Can you place an order for
Democracy-with extra cheese and jalapeno peppers?)

Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about cities
emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to the borders which have been
closed. Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off. Those who have
experience of working in Afghanistan say that by early November, food
convoys will not be able to reach the millions of Afghans (7.5 million
according to the UN) who run the very real risk of starving to death during
the course of this winter. They say that in the days that are left before
winter sets in, there can either be a war, or an attempt to reach food to
the hungry. Not both. As a gesture of humanitarian support, the US
government air-dropped 37,000 packets of emergency rations into Afghanistan.
It says it plans to drop a total of 5,000,000 packets. That will still only
add up to a single meal for half-a-million people out of the several million
in dire need of food. Aid workers have condemned it as a cynical, dangerous,
public-relations exercise. They say that air-dropping food packets is worse
than futile.
First, because the food will never get to those who really need it. More
dangerously, those who run out to retrieve the packets risk being blown up
by landmines. A tragic alms race.
Nevertheless, the food packets had a photo-op all to themselves. Their
contents were listed in major newspapers. They were vegetarian, we're told,
as per Muslim Dietary Law(!) Each yellow packet, decorated with the American
flag, contained: rice, peanut butter, bean salad, strawberry jam, crackers,
raisins, flat bread, an apple fruit bar, seasoning, matches, a set of
plastic cutlery, a serviette and illustrated user instructions.

After three years of unremitting drought, an air-dropped airline meal in
Jalalabad! The level of cultural ineptitude, the failure to understand what
months of relentless hunger and grinding poverty really mean, the US
government's attempt to use even this abject misery to boost its
self-image, beggars description.

Reverse the scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Taliban government was to
bomb New York City, saying all the while that its real target was the US
government and its policies. And suppose, during breaks between the bombing,
the Taliban dropped a few thousand packets containing nan and kebabs impaled
on an Afghan flag. Would the good people of New York ever find it in
themselves to forgive the Afghan government? Even if they were hungry, even
if they needed the food, even if they ate it, how would they ever forget the
insult, the condescension? Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York City, returned a
gift of $10 million from a Saudi prince because it came with a few words of
friendly advice about American policy in the Middle East. Is pride a luxury
only the rich are entitled to?

Far from stamping it out, igniting this kind of rage is what creates
terrorism. Hate and retribution don't go back into the box once you've let
them out. For every 'terrorist' or his 'supporter' that is killed, hundreds
of innocent people are being killed too. And for every hundred innocent
people killed, there is a good chance that several future terrorists will be

Where will it all lead?
Setting aside the rhetoric for a moment, consider the fact that the world
has not yet found an acceptable definition of what 'terrorism' is. One
country's terrorist is too often another's freedom fighter. At the heart of
the matter lies the world's deep-seated ambivalence towards violence. Once
violence is accepted as a legitimate political instrument, then the morality
and political acceptability of terrorists (insurgents or freedom fighters)
becomes contentious, bumpy terrain. The US government itself has funded,
armed, and sheltered plenty of rebels and insurgents around the world. The
CIA and Pakistan's ISI trained and armed the mujahideen who, in the 1980s,
were seen as terrorists by the government in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
While President Reagan posed with them for a group portrait and called them
the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers. Today,
Pakistan-America's ally in this new war-sponsors insurgents who cross the
border into Kashmir in India. Pakistan lauds them as 'freedom fighters',
India calls them 'terrorists'. India, for its part, denounces countries who
sponsor and abet terrorism, but the Indian army has, in the past, trained
separatist Tamil rebels asking for a homeland in Sri Lanka-the LTTE,
responsible for countless acts of bloody terrorism. (Just as the CIA
abandoned the mujahideen after they had served its purpose, India abruptly
turned its back on the LTTE for a host of political reasons. It was an
enraged LTTE suicide-bomber who assassinated former Indian prime minister
Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.)

It is important for governments and politicians to understand that
manipulating these huge, raging human feelings for their own narrow purposes
may yield instant results, but eventually and inexorably, they have
disastrous consequences. Igniting and exploiting religious sentiments for
reasons of political expediency is the most dangerous legacy that
governments or politicians can bequeath to any people-including their own.
People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know
that every religious text-from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita-can be mined
and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to
corporate globalization.

This is not to suggest that the terrorists who perpetrated the outrage on
September 11 should not be hunted down and brought to book. They must be.
But is
Nov 2, 2001 10:52 AM
go there
propaganda...stupid info (np)LaVelo
Nov 2, 2001 11:30 AM
Go away. (nm)JS
Nov 2, 2001 11:38 AM
Go away. (nm)Wannabe
Nov 2, 2001 12:14 PM
I second that...

ridiculous propagandist CRAProllo tommassi
Nov 2, 2001 11:45 AM
with far too many blissfull generalisations to count as worthy thought.

The moral here? NON CYCLING FORUM. then we can pick apart this little tome.
ridiculous propagandist CRAPishmael
Nov 2, 2001 1:54 PM
please tell me the crap part..maybe youve been misinformed for too long
Demands response, cycling or notguido
Nov 2, 2001 12:30 PM
As I sit here munching on my fried rice just prepared by the young couple from Korea, overlooking the brick streets layed by descendants of Africans, typing on a keyboard made in Malaysia, about to ride home on my bike built in the US with parts from Italy, Germany, the US and Japan, and reading this article written by an Indian woman, I'm embarrassed for my country, as I was in Vietnam in 1967, and have been every time since, when our leaders have squandered our national treasure on bombing defenseless foreign peoples we can't possibly have any respect for, as we attempt to vanquish their leaders. As the terrorists proved beyond a shadow of doubt on 9-11, mechanized warfare is as obsolete as muskets and cannon in making the world a peaceful place to live.

Guiliani should have accepted the act of kindness from the Saudi Arabian shiek along with his words. Bush shouldn't be waging war on the Taliban because they are, right now, the best hope for Afghanistan, as the communists were in revolting against the czars, Fidel Castro was in revolting against Trujillo's gangsters. Historians will see 20th century communism as a revolt against monarchy and privileged elites, as a necessary step toward democracy, as the Soviet bloc counties showed. Strong leadership has been used effectively to regain order out of chaos. Once stability is achieved, as in Iran most recently, governments become more democratic.

Whether from hubris, xenophobia, or just plain cussedness, American governments have never appreciated this. As a result, we have abetted evil while convinced we were fighting for good: in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, the Congo, and now Afghanistan. There is no justice, only retribution, more killing, more evil, as the Indian writer says. It is time for us to stop dropping bombs, for our leaders to stop saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us," and start talking--and listening.
Go away......Please?JS
Nov 2, 2001 12:45 PM
Demands response, cycling or notLaVelo
Nov 2, 2001 1:09 PM
>>Bush shouldn't be waging war on the Taliban because they are, right now, the best hope for Afghanistan

Yeah, and the nazis were the best hope for Germany at the time. Right?
Please do enlighten usKristin
Nov 2, 2001 1:39 PM
Just how are the Taliban the best hope for Afganistan??? Because there are a lot of women in that country who would disagree with you.

I have little respect for people who make blanket generalizations. It makes me wonder if they know anything, or are just repeating someing they heard on C-SPAN.
Never mind, you posted your note below whist I was composingKristin
Nov 2, 2001 1:42 PM
We should just drop it. Ishmeal just did this to stir things up. At times it looks as if he may become a friendly, agreeable part of this forum.
repeating what is on c-spanishmael
Nov 2, 2001 1:53 PM
untill c-span brought the taliban to the american mind almost all americans didnt give the women there a second thought...and do you think we are going to go in there and install some kind of democratic government that helps these women, i dont think that is our goal or we wouldve been there long ago...all of a sudden the taliban are americans arch enemy, i think c-span should maybe talk about some other civil rights abuses going on in the world and stop feeding the propaganda...did you read the article..i think americans need to know there foreign policy history before they talk about how great america is..
Your an antagonistKristin
Nov 2, 2001 2:15 PM
And I'm like the moronic fish that keeps bitting the dangling worm though I know the path it will lead me down. NO MORE!

I never said one thing about America being great. As a matter of fact, I have not expressed any of my personal feelings towards this nation or its policies. Nor will I ever do so. I had very little respect for you before you put words into my mouth. Now that respect is gone--though I doubt you'll care. Please think twice before presuming to speak for me in the future!
taliban are uptight with women!guido
Nov 2, 2001 2:22 PM
All I was saying is that when societies fall into anarchy and chaos, strong leadership is almost always the only way to get everybody back on track. Totalitarian regimes have always followed in countries with social problems that seemed to be insoluble: Nazi Germany, China, Cuba, African countries. Afghanistan is no exception. Americans find the same psychology in boot camps set up by law enforcement agencies to rehab wayward youth. You know, "tough love."

I think the way fundamentalist Islam treats women is outrageous.
taliban are uptight with women!Alexander Singer
Nov 2, 2001 5:35 PM
Demands response, cycling or notMe Dot Org
Nov 6, 2001 6:08 PM
i Bush shouldn't be waging war on the Taliban because they i are, right now, the best hope for Afghanistan, as the
i communists were in revolting against the czars, Fidel
i Castro was in revolting against Trujillo's gangsters.

Taking the last first, I always thought Castro was fighting Batista, and Trujillo was the Dictator of Domincan Republic, but maybe I get my Caribbean Dictators confused...

The Taliban is the 'best hope for Afghanistan' in the same way Mussolini was the best hope for Italy. Mussolini made the trains run on time. The Taliban makes sure there is no cheering at soccer matches. And, by the way, it is quite possibly the most oppressive regime against women in the world today.

The 'best hope for Afghanistan' was officially recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by exactly THREE countries in the world BEFORE September 11. The Taliban is only representative of a minority opinion of one ethnic group of Afghanistan.

i Historians will see 20th century communism as a revolt
i against monarchy and privileged elites, as a necessary
i step toward democracy, as the Soviet bloc counties
i showed.

Isn't it interesting that, as Afghanistan made the transition from Monarchy to Communism, now the Taliban is inserted as being their best hope before Democracy? Funny you didn't mention it before...

Why would historians see Communism as a necessary step between monarchy and democracy when many Western European countries made the transition from Monarchy to Democracy without Communism?

The Russian Revolution was in 1918, and the Soviet Union was finally overthrown in 1989. In between TENS OF MILLIONS of its citizens died in the gulag and political purges. Many Western European Countries made the transition from Monarchy to Democracy in much less time with much less bloodshed.

In China, Politcal Prisoners continue to be used as slave labor. The Great famine of the late 1950's killed millions as a direct result of the idiocy of the revolution's management. The Great Cultural Revolution encouraged children to turn in their parents in the name of revolutionary zeal. While waves of freedom were (finally) sweeping over the rest of the Communist world, the government of China brutally put down a non-violent demonstration in Tianamen Square.

i Strong leadership has been used effectively to regain order out of i chaos. Once stability is achieved, as in Iran most recently,
i governments become more i democratic.

This has been the rationalization of dictators since time immemorial. Gorbachov was a notable exception. Forget left and right: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. How many totalitarian countries have based their control on a cult of personality rather than ideology? From Castro to Ceausescu, from Lenin, Stalin and Mao to Kim Il-Sung, from Idi Amin to Trujillo, totalitarian leaders tenaciously cling to power by ruthlessly crushing opposition and promoting the idea that the state is perfectly embodied in the image of (your name here).

As far as Iran goes, we'll have to wait and see. I haven't seen very many of the Iranians I know rushing to go home to the "freedom" of their country. It could well turn out to be another "Prague Spring".
Dude, don't go there.Largo
Nov 2, 2001 12:36 PM
Enough of these posts on this site.
It just ends up in a big pissing match between people who would ordinarily be friends.
I've learned my lesson about responding to these posts with my own opinions.
People have their own political views, and you should respect that.
Lets keep it cycling, shall we?
Nov 2, 2001 1:34 PM
Sorry. Just got carried away. It's a subject that's been on alot of people's minds.

Ride in light,
Guido, wasn't referring to you.Largo
Nov 2, 2001 2:48 PM
Reply was aimed at Ishmael.
He is a very literate guy, and i respect his opinions, but these posts just get UGLY.
It is a very hot topic though.
Given the correct spelling and punctuationDodsworth
Nov 2, 2001 1:49 PM
I would suspect that you lifted this from someone. Common courtesy requires that you attribute this to the correct source. Maybe it's from that site
Given the correct spelling and punctuationishmael
Nov 2, 2001 2:00 PM
the name of the author is on it.. they write for the tribune i believe it was but im not sure, its been cut as you could see if you read it, did you..or did you close your mind to the possibility that it could be educational..i just had a discussion with three professors at my school about the war and the history of american foreign policy, one of them gave this to us all to read, your the only one who seems to think its incorrect..please tell where you think its inacurate..
Don't feed the troll - nothing but flame bait. nmDog
Nov 2, 2001 2:07 PM
Nov 2, 2001 3:36 PM
If your goal is driving regular posters off this board, you appear to be succeeding. On the non-cycling board (you know that exists, right?), a thoughtful regular poster just announced that she's taking a leave of absence because of threads like this. Do you really think this is the place for a debate on war or world politics? I'm sure you can find dozens if not hundreds of boards and chatrooms where the U.S. government's actions are up for debate. What do you hope to achieve with your posts here that you can't achieve in another forum? Are you posting this material on boards intended for the discussion of recipes, baseball, dog breeding, home improvement, gardening, and needle-point? Why here?
Hey ishmaelErik W
Nov 2, 2001 3:42 PM
I'm not sure if you've noticed, I didn't at first either, but there is a new Non-cycling Discussions Forum now. I think people would be happier, and it would be more appropriate, if you posted stuff like this over there. Thanks. Erik
well, that was the last timeWoof the dog
Nov 2, 2001 4:51 PM
I have ever helped you with anything. Stop spamming us with feministic bull, everything is so much more complex both of us don't even know. This is a cycling forum, and I am tired of seeing you post stuff like this. DON'T BOTHER REPLYING, I won't read it. Bye.
Hey... IshmaelBroke Spoke
Nov 2, 2001 6:23 PM
If this country has it so wrong, why then, dont you get your ass the hell out of it? Well, let me tell you why. Your just an ideological dumb ass that sits back in judgement of all that you READ about in this world. I dare say you have ever shed blood for the USA or ever would-huh! But you sure do love living in the greatest country on the planet, don't you. { I assume your from the USA by your use of "WE"} -I don't assume your an American. So, why don't you go practice what you feel you have been so well schooled in and stop trying to take advantage of this forum. Oh, thats right, your just practicing the tactics of those third world , oppressive, dictatorial, regimes that your heart would only bleed for. Man, your mind is really screwed! From: An "AMERICAN"
Ishmael, you gotta stop these posts. Lets just drop it.Largo
Nov 2, 2001 7:29 PM
Man, it just gets too ugly.
C'mon ecveryone, lets keep it civil.
He's got a right to his views, and we should respect them, free country etc...
But lets just drop these posts, its not cycling, although it is hugely important.
There must be a better site for this sort of ting.
This kind of post just alienates us bikers, like me and Steve, who would ordinarily get along just fine.
well said Ishmaelcanucklehead
Nov 2, 2001 7:51 PM
good of you to post this message where ever
LARGO, you are correct "free opinion , free country" it;s justBroke Spoke
Nov 2, 2001 11:10 PM
when the pieces of crap {Ishmael, that would be you and canucklehead, {seeing as how in your prior post you did not know what the "CRAP" part was--now you do} wont to sit back in "safe harbour" of this country and not defend the very thing that has given you the right to be here.--You were always the last one picked for the backyard football game, weren't you, "BITCH".
Abide : By your country.
Remain in light: So you can see where the hell your twisted mind is taking you.
re: the war...rare infoPbOkole
Nov 2, 2001 11:12 PM
I quit responding to this guy back when he was "john de". Anyone remember when he was so hyped up about Critical Mass? He is your typical quixotic Causehead tilting at the windmill of our evil society. He thinks that he needs to "get involved" to "make a difference" in the world. It doesn't matter how misguided the cause, if it will fly in the face of convention, he's there. Once he gets out of school and starts dealing with the real world, he will see that getting up every day, going to work and contributing to society instead of sniping at it from the safety of his hallowed campus will make more of a difference than any of his causes. It is best to ignore him and he will go away.
Your right "pbOkole" this is the last time I will respond to :Broke Spoke
Nov 2, 2001 11:24 PM
Oh-- Guido, --- you definitely need to" Ride In Light".Broke Spoke
Nov 2, 2001 11:33 PM
Every village has an idiotdavidl
Nov 3, 2001 3:59 AM
Our virtual village has ole' Ish. Ish, baby, you either need to get yourself some smarter perfessers, or join the Marine Corps and see the world. Bless your little pea-brain!!!
war hungry foolsishmael
Nov 3, 2001 11:37 AM
blow them up, kill or alienate the civilians and then put the northern alliance in power..great idea...if george says its a good idea follow his lead...whats the plan after that..and for all those with new sympathy for the women there are a bunch of other bandwagons for you to jump on that dont include war, and when did the US say we were going to liberate them anyway..if you just want revenge say it but dont hide behind the supossed righteousness of Bush...wait dont think about it, back to bikes
don't you get it??? F OFF and go somewhere else!!!! nmCT1
Nov 3, 2001 7:11 PM
Can't change the world.Largo
Nov 4, 2001 12:41 AM
Dude, you know where i stand from previous posts, but you are not going to change peoples minds or points of view on this site.
This whole thing is a symptom of a bigger problem, and i am at a loss as to how we are going to make the world a better place.
I just don't think this site is the forum to bring this up.
The info is out there for those who are interested.
Those who are not won't be swayed either way by your posts, however well meant, on this site.
Its bigger than any of us.
read the full article by Roydotkaye
Nov 5, 2001 11:13 AM

the military/industrial complex redux..
Who F'ing Cares?grzy
Nov 5, 2001 11:40 AM
Hey sh!thead, go repost other peoples crap, without their permission, elsewhere. There's not one mention of bikes or anything bike related. You are a dick for continuing to do this and will be treated as such. If you see value in this then you're really an idiot and prove that you can't listen. Got anything original and bike related to share - that's what we care about here. Maybe we should start psoting the minutes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commision meetings - after all isn't that important stuff also?

Don't be a dick.
re: the war...rare infomaelish
Nov 5, 2001 11:51 AM