20070611
(answer to the question "Poverty generates violence: true or false?")
I always distinguish poverty from despair. Poverty can be measured, and some people manage to live happily with only a few things. Despair is what people actually feel. More than poverty, despair and injustice lead to violence, and moreover, violence generates violence. The initial violence can be either physical or psychological, and great injustice is a kind of violence.
Hopelessness makes people do extreme things. You cannot repair injustice but have some impact, make yourself be heard. With the help of often cynical manipulators, you can be turned into a suicide bomber : your suffering stops, you make other people suffer, you have an impact and you make yourself be heard in a final kaboom.
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Thursday
Red Blogule to the Alliance of Fanatics - Vote Bush-Bin Laden 2004 !
Archives 20041030
(regarding Osama Bin Laden's intervention before the US Elections)
What I saw yesterday was a politician - neither a jihaddist warlord nor a religious leader - inviting himself to the debate, behind his stand. No red tie but as elegant an outfit as Karzai's. He waited for the candidates to use their time up and spill their beans. He's exposing his results and his programs. Facts and figures. No need to talk about his convictions - the message obviously passed earlier during the campaign.
Bin Laden just reminds the American audience he's not at war with the US and that his ennemies are moderate muslims. America was the one to start hostilities, helping Israel attack Lebanon. On September the 11th, Baby Doc paid for Papa Doc. Joseph Goebbels being long gone and Karl Rove being already hired by someone else, I wonder which hotshot propaganda expert this man drafted...
Without spending hundreds of million dollars in campaigning, this man sets the agenda. This is neither about Bush's results nor about Kerry's program. You want to promote democracy ? Be consistent and let the US majority withdraw the troops of Iraq, let the middle east populations, polarized by your fanatism, elect radical leaders... Now that you've done your job beyond my wildest expectations you can leave me alone. You think you're leading the world but you've misled it. Vote Bush-Bin Laden 2004!
SM on a forum
White Blogule to the Republicans for Kerry-Edwards
Archives 20041026
To me this election mirrors the fight on terror.
Regarding the latter, Bush doesn't understand (or pretends not to understand) this is not a religious war between America and the terrorists but a war from radical islamists to moderate muslims. The US have been drafted in order to magnify it but I don't think Bin Laden, even in his wildest dreams, ever hoped America would react as stupidly as this Administration did: instead of fighting extremism and terror they fueled it by launching a religious crusade - the way a medieval leader would have proceeded, not a responsible XXIst century leader.
Regarding this election, the key battle is not about Reps vs Dems: we are witnessing an attempted coup of extremists on the GOP, against moderate Republicans. Should Bush win November the 2nd, there may well be a much deeper crisis within the Republican party than within the Dems, who would unite even stronger as Resistants. Because the Republican Party would lose - if not this election, more fundamentally its very soul.
Kerry proved he has the ability to work hand in hand with Republicans because he is the one candidate to respect the values that built America, and most Republicans share this vision.
You are a Republican and you want to vote for Kerry but you are wondering if it is consistent ? It is, since President Bush is not a Republican. He doesn't respect the Republic (the res publica is about accepting the debate, bringing the issues out there, not about hidden agendas, undiscussed laws, preventing even Republicans from knowing what's going on...) nor the values that earned this country respect from its citizens as well as from other countries. As a Republican, you have a moral duty to protect your country. And the biggest danger it is facing right now is not terror but about the direction it is about to take, about it's very leadership. You are making the right choice for a true Republican.
SM on a forum
To me this election mirrors the fight on terror.
Regarding the latter, Bush doesn't understand (or pretends not to understand) this is not a religious war between America and the terrorists but a war from radical islamists to moderate muslims. The US have been drafted in order to magnify it but I don't think Bin Laden, even in his wildest dreams, ever hoped America would react as stupidly as this Administration did: instead of fighting extremism and terror they fueled it by launching a religious crusade - the way a medieval leader would have proceeded, not a responsible XXIst century leader.
Regarding this election, the key battle is not about Reps vs Dems: we are witnessing an attempted coup of extremists on the GOP, against moderate Republicans. Should Bush win November the 2nd, there may well be a much deeper crisis within the Republican party than within the Dems, who would unite even stronger as Resistants. Because the Republican Party would lose - if not this election, more fundamentally its very soul.
Kerry proved he has the ability to work hand in hand with Republicans because he is the one candidate to respect the values that built America, and most Republicans share this vision.
You are a Republican and you want to vote for Kerry but you are wondering if it is consistent ? It is, since President Bush is not a Republican. He doesn't respect the Republic (the res publica is about accepting the debate, bringing the issues out there, not about hidden agendas, undiscussed laws, preventing even Republicans from knowing what's going on...) nor the values that earned this country respect from its citizens as well as from other countries. As a Republican, you have a moral duty to protect your country. And the biggest danger it is facing right now is not terror but about the direction it is about to take, about it's very leadership. You are making the right choice for a true Republican.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the diplomacy of coercion - al Qaeda votes Bush
Archives 20041019
Look how Dubya tries to draft more leaders behind his reelection bid:
- For over one year and a half, Blair has been coerced into redeploying more soldiers to the Iraqi hot spots. He managed to postpone the decision till now but cannot refuse anymore since Washington imposed an ultimatum. Should he refuse, he would contradict his own defense of the invation and lose next elections. The only reason why he's hesitating now is : "what if this son of a Bush loses his own elections ?"
- Putin says terrorists want his fellow dictator Bush ousted November the 2nd, but why would muslim fundamentalists want to fire their best ally in the world ? To the contrary, they contribute to the climate of fear that keeps this excuse for a Prez rolling in the polls. What will Putin get for casting his ballot ? Expect a global warming of the relationships between him and the US. Expect a generous portion of Youkos to land in certain oily hands. Expect a wider access to Iraqi contracts to Russian investors.
- Look how Powell is travelling across the globe these days. Expect a kind intervention from say Koizumi or Berlusconi, lauding Dubya's stature as commander in chief of the biggest diplomatic failure this side of WWII.
SM on a forum
Look how Dubya tries to draft more leaders behind his reelection bid:
- For over one year and a half, Blair has been coerced into redeploying more soldiers to the Iraqi hot spots. He managed to postpone the decision till now but cannot refuse anymore since Washington imposed an ultimatum. Should he refuse, he would contradict his own defense of the invation and lose next elections. The only reason why he's hesitating now is : "what if this son of a Bush loses his own elections ?"
- Putin says terrorists want his fellow dictator Bush ousted November the 2nd, but why would muslim fundamentalists want to fire their best ally in the world ? To the contrary, they contribute to the climate of fear that keeps this excuse for a Prez rolling in the polls. What will Putin get for casting his ballot ? Expect a global warming of the relationships between him and the US. Expect a generous portion of Youkos to land in certain oily hands. Expect a wider access to Iraqi contracts to Russian investors.
- Look how Powell is travelling across the globe these days. Expect a kind intervention from say Koizumi or Berlusconi, lauding Dubya's stature as commander in chief of the biggest diplomatic failure this side of WWII.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the November (c)Rush - Comical Ali Burton
Archives 20041016
The US army is carpet bombing Fallujah again. This time the aim is to get Zarkawi before November the 2nd, whatever the cost for the population (and for the image of the US - this is not the deserted mountains of Tora-Bora we're talking about but an Iraqi city where many kids have already been killed by the American bombs).
Significantly, the man has just been put on the list of most wanted terrorists because Bush knows he can get him ("smoke him out"?) on time. But Bush is not your friendly cow-boy hero; he is the corrupted sheriff who invited the bad guys to rule the country.
Again, bringing more chaos and fueling more hatred abroad, hurrying the agendas of the country you invaded is not the most respectful way of salvaging an election. Bush is right when he says we should get rid of the thugs: it's time for him to get the heck outta the White House.
SM on a forum
The US army is carpet bombing Fallujah again. This time the aim is to get Zarkawi before November the 2nd, whatever the cost for the population (and for the image of the US - this is not the deserted mountains of Tora-Bora we're talking about but an Iraqi city where many kids have already been killed by the American bombs).
Significantly, the man has just been put on the list of most wanted terrorists because Bush knows he can get him ("smoke him out"?) on time. But Bush is not your friendly cow-boy hero; he is the corrupted sheriff who invited the bad guys to rule the country.
Again, bringing more chaos and fueling more hatred abroad, hurrying the agendas of the country you invaded is not the most respectful way of salvaging an election. Bush is right when he says we should get rid of the thugs: it's time for him to get the heck outta the White House.
SM on a forum
White Blogule - putting more pressure on Dubya for debate 2
20041004
(discussion between prez debates 1 and 2)
Homeland security is one thing, homegrown propaganda another. Kerry should expose W in next debate.
Last thursday, John made a strong point remembering Osama was the one who did 9/11, not Saddam. He has one more move to do in order to complete the home run on this issue.Let's make it clear, with the bold facts :
- because of the Weapons of Mass Disinformation carpeting the US since 9/11, too many US citizen still believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11
- the intelligence cannot be blamed since the only tiny thread (a meeting in Baghdad) was very early confirmed as a fake by the US as well as by European and Middle East intel services
- the Veep keeps telling lies about it
- the Prez did admit something but not wholeheartedly, and even now keeps leaking fake lapses (oops, did it again during debate 1 - too bad a smart man was in the audience and had the opportunity to talk back)
Here and now, during this very debate and in the name of truth, let Kerry ask Bush to confirm he was wrong when he said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and that Dick Cheney, the man who would be President if anything happened to him, is wrong when he maintains it. Now regarding the way this Administration is defending the US : the strategy is totally counterproductive. It is the way a fascist regime would proceed : isolating the country from its partners, depriving citizens from freedom and raising fear across the land with people as respectful of democracy as Hoover or McCarthy, exporting chaos and fueling terrorism abroad and at home with a crusade in the name of God...
The question is not what President Kerry could do to improve this arsenal, but how long it will take for America to fix the mess and restore its pride.
Bush fails to defend the US because he fails to respect its values. He is corrupting America from the inside and should not be allowed to do more harm at the command of the country...
SM on a forum
(discussion between prez debates 1 and 2)
Homeland security is one thing, homegrown propaganda another. Kerry should expose W in next debate.
Last thursday, John made a strong point remembering Osama was the one who did 9/11, not Saddam. He has one more move to do in order to complete the home run on this issue.Let's make it clear, with the bold facts :
- because of the Weapons of Mass Disinformation carpeting the US since 9/11, too many US citizen still believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11
- the intelligence cannot be blamed since the only tiny thread (a meeting in Baghdad) was very early confirmed as a fake by the US as well as by European and Middle East intel services
- the Veep keeps telling lies about it
- the Prez did admit something but not wholeheartedly, and even now keeps leaking fake lapses (oops, did it again during debate 1 - too bad a smart man was in the audience and had the opportunity to talk back)
Here and now, during this very debate and in the name of truth, let Kerry ask Bush to confirm he was wrong when he said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and that Dick Cheney, the man who would be President if anything happened to him, is wrong when he maintains it. Now regarding the way this Administration is defending the US : the strategy is totally counterproductive. It is the way a fascist regime would proceed : isolating the country from its partners, depriving citizens from freedom and raising fear across the land with people as respectful of democracy as Hoover or McCarthy, exporting chaos and fueling terrorism abroad and at home with a crusade in the name of God...
The question is not what President Kerry could do to improve this arsenal, but how long it will take for America to fix the mess and restore its pride.
Bush fails to defend the US because he fails to respect its values. He is corrupting America from the inside and should not be allowed to do more harm at the command of the country...
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to "DEMISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (continued)
Archives 20040910
(discussion about the media)
You will hear a lot about Afghanistan since Bush has planned presidential elections there for october the 9th - totally insane considering the situation there (and Afghani leaders complain, except the man the US put in power*), but what counts is the nov 2nd elections.
You said it : Afghanistan was a war on terror... not Iraq. But the US didn't invest what they said they would : the country is back to mass production of drug, and anarchy rules across the country. Talibans and intolerance are back, security is inexistant but in certain parts of Kabul. "Dismission accomplished".
Bush waged the war there because he was compelled to. But he used this alibi ticket to ride much further than allowed...
SM on a forum
* there may not be oil in Afghanistan, but there is a power issue as well : Hamid Karzai used to be adviser to UNOCAL - a US oil company with a good position in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico - for a pipeline project.
(discussion about the media)
You will hear a lot about Afghanistan since Bush has planned presidential elections there for october the 9th - totally insane considering the situation there (and Afghani leaders complain, except the man the US put in power*), but what counts is the nov 2nd elections.
You said it : Afghanistan was a war on terror... not Iraq. But the US didn't invest what they said they would : the country is back to mass production of drug, and anarchy rules across the country. Talibans and intolerance are back, security is inexistant but in certain parts of Kabul. "Dismission accomplished".
Bush waged the war there because he was compelled to. But he used this alibi ticket to ride much further than allowed...
SM on a forum
* there may not be oil in Afghanistan, but there is a power issue as well : Hamid Karzai used to be adviser to UNOCAL - a US oil company with a good position in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico - for a pipeline project.
Red Blogule to the "Dear Compassionate Leader" - Bush: the opposite of compassion
Archives 20040910 (see blogules 2004)
Imposture again. Would deserve more exposure in the medias.
How dares Bush say he is compassionate after missing such an historical opportunity as the "after 9/11"?
Just remember - it's not that far away: right after America has been struck by the most massive terrorist attack ever, the whole world is with the USA and grieves with them. Beyond terror, there is the hope for a new world: will the international community seize this unique opportunity to do things differently, to move closer to each other, to build a more tolerant and compassionate world ? The very first statesman to visit the US and Ground Zero is a man who as a mayor and Prime Minister, knew all about being hit by terror. A man who knew the worst thing to do was to start a religious crusade and fuel the hatred across the globe. Jacques Chirac offers Bush his full support and will send troops to Afghanistan because the war to the Taliban regime is legitimate for the war on terror.
But the POTUS made the wrong choices. Instead of leveraging on the support of the whole international community, he accumulates mistakes and manages, within a few weeks, to have most countries against the US (and the few leaders backing his crusades don't have the support of their own people). The victim becomes a wreckless outlaw, the criminals become heroes or victims. Bush is killing the 9/11 victims one more time, and will even do it once more during his campaign, using the images of the tragedy for his reelection ads.
The problem is showing compassion is not being compassionate, especially when you're making a show out of your so called compassion. Compassion is not about stealing other people's hearts.
But the American people isn't aware of this imposture. People who know are those who are used and abused by Bush's weapons of mass disinformation:
- look at the grieving 9/11 families opposing this misuse of their pain
- hear the Iraqi soccer players rebel at the Athens Olympics when they hear Bush is trying to take advantage of their successes (Bush eventually canceled his plans to go to Athens and tried to send his dove alibi Powell instead. A series of demonstrations made Powell cancel his trip too)
- listen to the Afghan leaders complain about the october 9 presidential elections (the calendar is totally irrealistic for the country, they know these elections are just another argument for Bush reelection campaign).
SM on a forum
Imposture again. Would deserve more exposure in the medias.
How dares Bush say he is compassionate after missing such an historical opportunity as the "after 9/11"?
Just remember - it's not that far away: right after America has been struck by the most massive terrorist attack ever, the whole world is with the USA and grieves with them. Beyond terror, there is the hope for a new world: will the international community seize this unique opportunity to do things differently, to move closer to each other, to build a more tolerant and compassionate world ? The very first statesman to visit the US and Ground Zero is a man who as a mayor and Prime Minister, knew all about being hit by terror. A man who knew the worst thing to do was to start a religious crusade and fuel the hatred across the globe. Jacques Chirac offers Bush his full support and will send troops to Afghanistan because the war to the Taliban regime is legitimate for the war on terror.
But the POTUS made the wrong choices. Instead of leveraging on the support of the whole international community, he accumulates mistakes and manages, within a few weeks, to have most countries against the US (and the few leaders backing his crusades don't have the support of their own people). The victim becomes a wreckless outlaw, the criminals become heroes or victims. Bush is killing the 9/11 victims one more time, and will even do it once more during his campaign, using the images of the tragedy for his reelection ads.
The problem is showing compassion is not being compassionate, especially when you're making a show out of your so called compassion. Compassion is not about stealing other people's hearts.
But the American people isn't aware of this imposture. People who know are those who are used and abused by Bush's weapons of mass disinformation:
- look at the grieving 9/11 families opposing this misuse of their pain
- hear the Iraqi soccer players rebel at the Athens Olympics when they hear Bush is trying to take advantage of their successes (Bush eventually canceled his plans to go to Athens and tried to send his dove alibi Powell instead. A series of demonstrations made Powell cancel his trip too)
- listen to the Afghan leaders complain about the october 9 presidential elections (the calendar is totally irrealistic for the country, they know these elections are just another argument for Bush reelection campaign).
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the New Lie - France was not against a war on Iraq (if all other options failed)
Archives 20040829 (see blogules 2004)
GWB on CNN's Larry King Live : "this debate on coalitions is a very interesting debate. Sometimes I think they're basically saying that there is no such thing as a coalition unless the French are involved. But the truth of the matter is, the French are involved in Afghanistan, and the French have been involved in Haiti. The French government just didn't agree with the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And, therefore, there was a difference of opinion on that issue."
A Frenchman, I cannot accept this lie : the issue was not about removing Saddam from power but about starting a war with a wrong motive, without any propper peace strategy, but with a clear and immediate danger of fueling terrorism across the planet in general and BRINGING it to Iraq in particular. The war in Afghanistan was completely linked to the war on terror. Too bad Mr Bush used this token for an illegal wild ride, forgetting to finish the job where it mattered : instead of financing what was planned there, he's asking for more billions to cover up his mess in Baghdad. Afghanistan is back to drug mass production, insecurity, corruption and intolerance. Dismission accomplished.
Bush should remember the position of the French government : they were not against a war on Iraq, but only if all other options failed. War isn't only a matter of boys using toys and friends getting contracts. The decision of going to war should not be left into the hands of this man.
SM on a forum
GWB on CNN's Larry King Live : "this debate on coalitions is a very interesting debate. Sometimes I think they're basically saying that there is no such thing as a coalition unless the French are involved. But the truth of the matter is, the French are involved in Afghanistan, and the French have been involved in Haiti. The French government just didn't agree with the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And, therefore, there was a difference of opinion on that issue."
A Frenchman, I cannot accept this lie : the issue was not about removing Saddam from power but about starting a war with a wrong motive, without any propper peace strategy, but with a clear and immediate danger of fueling terrorism across the planet in general and BRINGING it to Iraq in particular. The war in Afghanistan was completely linked to the war on terror. Too bad Mr Bush used this token for an illegal wild ride, forgetting to finish the job where it mattered : instead of financing what was planned there, he's asking for more billions to cover up his mess in Baghdad. Afghanistan is back to drug mass production, insecurity, corruption and intolerance. Dismission accomplished.
Bush should remember the position of the French government : they were not against a war on Iraq, but only if all other options failed. War isn't only a matter of boys using toys and friends getting contracts. The decision of going to war should not be left into the hands of this man.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the use of terror - Terrorists and Resistants
20040828 (see blogules 2004)
(discussion about the definition of a terrorist)
Defining a terrorist is actually a tricky task. I'd rather use the expression "terrorist actions" or better "actions of terror" since a terrorist is defined by his actions rather than by his permanent state (Arafat proved a former terrorist could be awarded a Nobel Prize).
Terrorists and resistants shouldn't be opposed since resistance is an aim and terror a means. Thus, some resistants do use terror. Does the aim justify the means is another question - I guess a true resistant should resist certain temptations.
One should also avoid the dangerous turf of "good vs evil" to draw the line. The problem with Bush is the way he uses terror and even the word "terror". To me, his definition of a terrorist should be extended to anyone threatening his reelection.
Still, there is a notion of "positive action" or kind of : with resistance and sabotage, you are opposing a force directly, sometimes through its symbol if you cannot manage any "better". With terror you can also weaken an ennemy overwhelmingly stronger than you, but you do not strike at the source of the force and go for the weakest part of the society. Bringing fear and destruction is the thing, and publicity (at home and/or abroad) a must. And the action is more important than the actor (terrorist) : the fear is greater if you do not know who's striking. I am anyone and everyone, I can strike anyone anywhere anytime.
SM on a forum
PS : don't get me wrong : Bin Laden won't get a Nobel prize (except maybe for his command of TNT, a Nobel invention)
(discussion about the definition of a terrorist)
Defining a terrorist is actually a tricky task. I'd rather use the expression "terrorist actions" or better "actions of terror" since a terrorist is defined by his actions rather than by his permanent state (Arafat proved a former terrorist could be awarded a Nobel Prize).
Terrorists and resistants shouldn't be opposed since resistance is an aim and terror a means. Thus, some resistants do use terror. Does the aim justify the means is another question - I guess a true resistant should resist certain temptations.
One should also avoid the dangerous turf of "good vs evil" to draw the line. The problem with Bush is the way he uses terror and even the word "terror". To me, his definition of a terrorist should be extended to anyone threatening his reelection.
Still, there is a notion of "positive action" or kind of : with resistance and sabotage, you are opposing a force directly, sometimes through its symbol if you cannot manage any "better". With terror you can also weaken an ennemy overwhelmingly stronger than you, but you do not strike at the source of the force and go for the weakest part of the society. Bringing fear and destruction is the thing, and publicity (at home and/or abroad) a must. And the action is more important than the actor (terrorist) : the fear is greater if you do not know who's striking. I am anyone and everyone, I can strike anyone anywhere anytime.
SM on a forum
PS : don't get me wrong : Bin Laden won't get a Nobel prize (except maybe for his command of TNT, a Nobel invention)
Wednesday
Red Blogule to the so called "war on terror" - Are you better off ?
Archives 20040419 (see blogules 2004)
"Are you better off now than back in 2000?" Any terrorist - even talibans - would answer "yes" without any shadow of a doubt. George W Bush is an insult to the values that built America. He isn't waging any war on terror but for it...
- "Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement". George W Bush - 20030501
- "Four years of lies and intimidation could not make the US people love their President or desire their own humiliation". US Voters - 20041102
SM
"Are you better off now than back in 2000?" Any terrorist - even talibans - would answer "yes" without any shadow of a doubt. George W Bush is an insult to the values that built America. He isn't waging any war on terror but for it...
- "Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement". George W Bush - 20030501
- "Four years of lies and intimidation could not make the US people love their President or desire their own humiliation". US Voters - 20041102
SM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search through my personal portal :
