Full Version: Not in our name
Read this recent NY times 2 page add. The 5th paragraph is extra outragous!! 
Not in our Name!
This is the most outragous thing I have ever heard about september 11th. We liberated Panama from a dictator, we didn't kill 3,000 panamanians. The bad things we have done aren't a reason to kill us 3,000 of us.
Not in our Name!
This is the most outragous thing I have ever heard about september 11th. We liberated Panama from a dictator, we didn't kill 3,000 panamanians. The bad things we have done aren't a reason to kill us 3,000 of us.
What is it that you were looking to debate, RancidUncle? 
Is it wrong? Why are these famous people saying this stuff?
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Jan 27 2003, 10:09 PM)
Is it wrong? Why are these famous people saying this stuff?
Because that is their right as Americans
I know they should be able to say whatever they want. The issue is why are they saying America is a big bully and their evil is almost reason enough to legitimize the death of American cilivians.
The spokesman for the group that sponsored this ad was on Bill O'Reilly this evening. His grasp of history was questionable at best.
He made a point of saying "many famous people" had signed the ad. Does "famous" mean important? or knowledgeable? I often wonder why people give any more credence to the statements of "famous people" just because of celebrity. If you are a famous pop singer - does that make your statements on foreign policy more profound?
So, like if Barbra Streisand says something about America's foreign policy, because she sings well - that makes her an expert in foreign policy?
She has a right to say whatever she wants, but her singing ability doesn't affect her thinking ability.
(don't ask me to sing)
He made a point of saying "many famous people" had signed the ad. Does "famous" mean important? or knowledgeable? I often wonder why people give any more credence to the statements of "famous people" just because of celebrity. If you are a famous pop singer - does that make your statements on foreign policy more profound?
So, like if Barbra Streisand says something about America's foreign policy, because she sings well - that makes her an expert in foreign policy?
She has a right to say whatever she wants, but her singing ability doesn't affect her thinking ability.
(don't ask me to sing
)
We have a discussion regarding celebrity views here: Celebrity political views, Do we really care?
Perhaps we could keep this to a discussion of this particular ad and whether or not we agree its message.
(btw - do you have something against celebrities, RancidUncle
)?
Perhaps we could keep this to a discussion of this particular ad and whether or not we agree its message.
(btw - do you have something against celebrities, RancidUncle
)?
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Jan 27 2003, 07:04 PM)
Read this recent NY times 2 page add. The 5th paragraph is extra outragous!!
Not in our Name!
This is the most outragous thing I have ever heard about september 11th. We liberated Panama from a dictator, we didn't kill 3,000 panamanians. The bad things we have done aren't a reason to kill us 3,000 of us.
Not in our Name!
This is the most outragous thing I have ever heard about september 11th. We liberated Panama from a dictator, we didn't kill 3,000 panamanians. The bad things we have done aren't a reason to kill us 3,000 of us.
Here's paragraph five:
QUOTE
We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.
I don't think this is outrageous. Is it unfair to include in our mourning other cases where civilians were killed? I don't think it lessens the grief, I think they stated fairly clearly the grief and shock we all felt. What about Panama?
QUOTE
The Mexican press reported that two Catholic Bishops estimated deaths at perhaps 3000. Hospitals and nongovernmental human rights groups estimated deaths at over 2000.
A joint delegation of the Costa Rica-based Central American Human Rights Commission (CODEHUCA) and the Panamanian Human Rights Commission (CONADEHUPA) published the report of its January 20-30 inquiry, based on numerous interviews. It concluded that "the human costs of the invasion are substantially higher than the official U.S. figures" of 202 civilians killed, reaching 2-3000 according to "conservative estimates." Eyewitnesses interviewed in the urban slums report that U.S. helicopters aimed their fire at buildings with only civilian occupants, that a U.S. tank destroyed a public bus killing 26 passengers, that civilian residences were burned to the ground with many apartments destroyed and many killed, that U.S. troops shot at ambulances and killed wounded, some with bayonets, and denied access to the Red Cross. The Catholic and Episcopal Churches gave estimates of 3000 dead as "conservative." Civilians were illegally detained, particularly union leaders and those considered "in opposition to the invasion or nationalistic." "All the residences and offices of the political sectors that oppose the invasion have been searched and much of them have been destroyed and their valuables stolen." The U.S. imposed severe censorship. Human rights violations under Noriega had been "unacceptably high," the report continues, though of course "mild compared with the record of U.S.-supported regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador." But the U.S invasion "caused an unprecedented level of deaths, suffering, and human rights abuses in Panama." The title of the report is: "Panama: More than an invasion,... a massacre."
A joint delegation of the Costa Rica-based Central American Human Rights Commission (CODEHUCA) and the Panamanian Human Rights Commission (CONADEHUPA) published the report of its January 20-30 inquiry, based on numerous interviews. It concluded that "the human costs of the invasion are substantially higher than the official U.S. figures" of 202 civilians killed, reaching 2-3000 according to "conservative estimates." Eyewitnesses interviewed in the urban slums report that U.S. helicopters aimed their fire at buildings with only civilian occupants, that a U.S. tank destroyed a public bus killing 26 passengers, that civilian residences were burned to the ground with many apartments destroyed and many killed, that U.S. troops shot at ambulances and killed wounded, some with bayonets, and denied access to the Red Cross. The Catholic and Episcopal Churches gave estimates of 3000 dead as "conservative." Civilians were illegally detained, particularly union leaders and those considered "in opposition to the invasion or nationalistic." "All the residences and offices of the political sectors that oppose the invasion have been searched and much of them have been destroyed and their valuables stolen." The U.S. imposed severe censorship. Human rights violations under Noriega had been "unacceptably high," the report continues, though of course "mild compared with the record of U.S.-supported regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador." But the U.S invasion "caused an unprecedented level of deaths, suffering, and human rights abuses in Panama." The title of the report is: "Panama: More than an invasion,... a massacre."
- Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky
I had a friend who joined the Marines right out of high school. When he came back from Panama he was a changed man. He described scenes like the above quote. In fact, his experience there was so eye opening that it really was an important political turning point for me, it really got me interested in finding out the "story behind the story," as it were.
I guess I don't understand your criticism. Are we to feel grief only for American victims? What happened on 9/11 was incredibly sad. All death is sad, and most sad of all is the death of the unsuspecting innocent, who has nothing to do with war or policy.
QUOTE
In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philipines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction.
lol I supposed we sold those bulldozers to Isreal, and that is why it's our fault eh?
whatever....
--cheers
'Scuse me for asking...
But are not Dubya and Rumsfeld celebrities also?.
Are some of the things they say just as outrageous?.
Or is there a difference that I'm missing?
Regards.....Alan
But are not Dubya and Rumsfeld celebrities also?.
Are some of the things they say just as outrageous?.
Or is there a difference that I'm missing?
Regards.....Alan
Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not In Our Name has every right to say what they will, they are Americans (at least most are), and dissent is the hallmark of a free and open society.
But looking at the list of names, the question begs, is this a moral dissent or a political dissent?
In my opinion, we had the same level of justification (or lack of) to bomb Serbia, and almost invade Haiti, yet nary a voice was heard from these people.
They may spout, sputter and posture in all their morality and piety, but their facade is transparent. At least to me.
Not In Our Name has every right to say what they will, they are Americans (at least most are), and dissent is the hallmark of a free and open society.
But looking at the list of names, the question begs, is this a moral dissent or a political dissent?
In my opinion, we had the same level of justification (or lack of) to bomb Serbia, and almost invade Haiti, yet nary a voice was heard from these people.
They may spout, sputter and posture in all their morality and piety, but their facade is transparent. At least to me.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 28 2003, 05:58 AM)
Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not In Our Name has every right to say what they will, they are Americans (at least most are), and dissent is the hallmark of a free and open society.
But looking at the list of names, the question begs, is this a moral dissent or a political dissent?
In my opinion, we had the same level of justification (or lack of) to bomb Serbia, and almost invade Haiti, yet nary a voice was heard from these people.
They may spout, sputter and posture in all their morality and piety, but their facade is transparent. At least to me.
Not In Our Name has every right to say what they will, they are Americans (at least most are), and dissent is the hallmark of a free and open society.
But looking at the list of names, the question begs, is this a moral dissent or a political dissent?
In my opinion, we had the same level of justification (or lack of) to bomb Serbia, and almost invade Haiti, yet nary a voice was heard from these people.
They may spout, sputter and posture in all their morality and piety, but their facade is transparent. At least to me.
You're right in one sense, this has become a bit of a cause celebre. However, there are in fact quite a few people on that list who were very vocal about both Kosovo and Haiti, and who were very critical of the Clinton administrations policies in these cases. However, these are people who are routinely ignored by mainstream media, which tolerates only a certain level of dissent.
If you want to find dissent on the right, it's all over the airwaves. Finding alternative media on the left takes a bit more digging. But I can guarantee you these guys were indeed speaking up about other issues, they just didn't have an ad in the New York Times.
When you see an ad like that, it's easy to dismiss it as a sort of "hey, it would be cool to sign this" thing, but I assure you, there is a huge movement behind this, full of people who are working incredibly hard. Think how many people, in America and abroad, were taking to the streets to protest a war which hasn't even started - which is really unprecedented - for every one marching, there's more than one who agrees but doesn't march. Think about that before you dismiss it out of hand.
They may have strong backing and their words covered under the first amendment.
But what is also covered under the first amendment, is our right to call them idiots.
True, they had every right to say what they said. However, I STRONLY disagree with most of it, and think it's just more stupid retorhic with little facts to back it up.
I think this author could learn a thing or two by coming to AD and having a debate with us.
--cheers
But what is also covered under the first amendment, is our right to call them idiots.
True, they had every right to say what they said. However, I STRONLY disagree with most of it, and think it's just more stupid retorhic with little facts to back it up.
I think this author could learn a thing or two by coming to AD and having a debate with us.
--cheers
Listen to the interview with Glick done by O'Reilly where O'Reilly get's so upset he yells at the kid to shut up and cut's his mike.
Audio/written transcript
Audio/written transcript
QUOTE
GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.
O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...
GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.
O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.
GLICK: OK.
O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.
GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.
O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?
GLICK: Why?
O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.
GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...
O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.
........
O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...
O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...
O'REILLY: Who killed your father.
GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...
O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
GLICK: Well, I hope she is.
O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.
GLICK: OK.
O'REILLY: In respect for your father...
GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!
GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...
GLICK: ... not the people of America.
O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...
GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...
GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.
O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.
GLICK: OK.
O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.
GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.
O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?
GLICK: Why?
O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.
GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...
O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.
........
O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...
O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...
O'REILLY: Who killed your father.
GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...
O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
GLICK: Well, I hope she is.
O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.
GLICK: OK.
O'REILLY: In respect for your father...
GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!
GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...
GLICK: ... not the people of America.
O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...
GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
The part that confuses me is the not in our name ramble. Doesn't Bush do everything in our name, isn't that what we elect a President to do?
CP
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Feb 11 2003, 01:42 PM)
The part that confuses me is the not in our name ramble. Doesn't Bush do everything in our name, isn't that what we elect a President to do?
CP
CP
Well, if 100% voted for the sitting president, then yeah. But that's the whole point. "Not in Our Name" is saying, you do this, but not in our name. We are speaking out against it. Did Clinton diddle around with Monica in your name, Conservpat? Our president speaks for our government and its policies. Those who disagree with those policies often feel that reprehensible policies do not speak to their own views, and so they speak up about it. Or is dissent only OK when it is people on the right grousing about liberal policies? Those who feel that abortion is wrong are in dissent. Those who feel that guns should be unregulated are in dissent. Those who believe that social programs are wrong are in dissent. Without dissent, it's not America.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Feb 11 2003, 10:19 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Feb 11 2003, 01:42 PM)
The part that confuses me is the not in our name ramble. Doesn't Bush do everything in our name, isn't that what we elect a President to do?
CP
CP
Well, if 100% voted for the sitting president, then yeah. But that's the whole point. "Not in Our Name" is saying, you do this, but not in our name. We are speaking out against it. Did Clinton diddle around with Monica in your name, Conservpat? Our president speaks for our government and its policies. Those who disagree with those policies often feel that reprehensible policies do not speak to their own views, and so they speak up about it. Or is dissent only OK when it is people on the right grousing about liberal policies? Those who feel that abortion is wrong are in dissent. Those who feel that guns should be unregulated are in dissent. Those who believe that social programs are wrong are in dissent. Without dissent, it's not America.
No he didn't, but an elective official is elected to make dissisons or a country, it's that simple. AS for the election, our law and constitution agree with the way the election procedure went, why can't everyone else?
CP
I guess some people will sit on their duffs and complain, while others feel strongly enough to speak up publicly against something they think is wrong.
If John Doe were elected president and made a "decision for our country" that Hussein was really an upstanding, if misunderstood guy, and that what we really ought to do is invite Iraq to become a part of NATO, would you get up and speak then? Or would you accept it?
I didn't bring up anything about the 2000 election, I'm not sure where you pulled that one from. I only remarked that 100% of the people didn't (and never do) vote for the sitting president. The same would be true of any president who won an election in our history.
If the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War had never happened, how much longer would we have remained there? How many more lives would have been lost? People stand up and speak when they feel compelled to do so, and sometimes, their voices DO make a difference.
If John Doe were elected president and made a "decision for our country" that Hussein was really an upstanding, if misunderstood guy, and that what we really ought to do is invite Iraq to become a part of NATO, would you get up and speak then? Or would you accept it?
QUOTE
AS for the election, our law and constitution agree with the way the election procedure went, why can't everyone else?
I didn't bring up anything about the 2000 election, I'm not sure where you pulled that one from. I only remarked that 100% of the people didn't (and never do) vote for the sitting president. The same would be true of any president who won an election in our history.
If the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War had never happened, how much longer would we have remained there? How many more lives would have been lost? People stand up and speak when they feel compelled to do so, and sometimes, their voices DO make a difference.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.