HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 67 Next »

JackRiddler

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 22,176

Journal Archives

Kill the messenger!!!

The thread topic is none of the distractions you want to bring in. There are Nazi movements across Europe, Hindu supremacists are in the Indian government, and asteroids orbit the sun - so what?

This thread is supposedly about ISIS. It is not about your Reagan-worthy fantasies about how Dem Liberals Blame America for All Bad Things. Your rhetoric is petty, self-pitying, shameful and very right-wing, but that is also beside the point.

On the topic of this thread:

The current existence and territorial position of an Islamist paramilitary in Iraq and Syria is the product of the war of aggression launched by the states of U.S. and U.K., which shattered the secular Iraqi nation and contributed to the eventual dissolution of Syria. There would be no ISIS holding territory without the U.S.-U.K. destruction of Iraq. Furthermore, something like ISIS was the predictable result of the 2003 war of aggression.

A lot of bad, violent ideologies dating back hundreds and even thousands of years are still floating around, including Christianisms in the Crusader mode and a version of Judaism that advocates genocide against Arabs. So? Ideologies are not actors in history. They become relevant through context and agency.

Furthermore, any readers above fifth-grade level and with the slightest sense unblinded by their own ideology will have no trouble figuring out which of the two of us is refusing to "tax the brain," refusing to listen or to respond relevantly, and ignoring elementary logic and facts. Thanks for playing and deal with it.

That's a false label. I merely remember what just happened.

The Wahhabi ideology indeed arose centuries ago, which directly contradicts your argument. Twenty years ago, its adherents did not hold territory within Iraq or Syria, and had no prospects of doing so. There may have been little likable about them, but clearly, they were less extreme. There was no Islamist army able to threaten Baghdad. So what happened? The nation-state of Iraq was destroyed from without in an act of direct state aggression upon another state, one that is without parallel in the last 30 years. The fact that you call this enormous crime a "cock-up" already speaks volumes about your mindset: America, she doesn't commit crimes, she can only make mistakes in a rough world where others are the bad guys.

That's the situation with ISIS. There's no need to answer your silly questions about completely unrelated matters, some of which are FOXNEWS-level attempts at mockery (tsunamis, ha ha). These betray an extreme America-centrism. Why? Because you seem to be easily wounded by the facts, when these show the responsibility of the government you happen to identify with. It's no different than when Reagan claimed Democrats always "Blame America first." (It's not the "America" per se, that's an abstraction. We're talking about a system of political economy, policy, business models, and a variety of actors who have indeed contributed to phenomena like climate change - and the rise of ISIS.)

Stop arming the world.

These questions only seem to be asked of the public after the latest monster only "we" can slay has already arisen as a consequence of earlier U.S. policy (inadvertantly, unintentionally, intentionally, oops as a necessity). The question is why did the United States and U.K. governments destroy the nation of Iraq in an act of aggressive war, thereby causing millions of refugees to flee mostly into Syria? Remember that? Why did these same governments follow up some years later by intervening to assure the destruction of Libya? Why do they arm and support the Gulf states, some of the most oppressive and aggressive regimes in the world, whose direct support for the most extreme factions in Syria and Iraq gave rise to ISIS?

Related, why did the U.S. government devise and force a policy on Mexico that led to an insane drug war in which tens of thousands of people have been murdered, often with the same barbarity (mass beheadings, for example) as in the ISIS-controlled territory?

Stop helping to set up future conflicts and wars around the world. Stop allowing private interests to profit from these by way of arms sales and debt.

Stop!!! You must vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs!

Because... Jeb Bush!

With us or against us!

I have seen the propaganda campaign.

Hollywood A-list films are not just movies, they are accompanied by large-scale propaganda campaigns that often cost more than the production of the movie itself and reach a far greater number of people through unsolicited commercials, talk-show interviews, media buzz, awards bullshit, etc. etc.

The campaign is bigger than the movie. It also conveys a message. We all know how to read commercials, which contain content. The message in the case of the propaganda campaign for "American Sniper" is crystal-clear. It's fair game for discussion, regardless if one has seen the movie.

In this case, the commercials also happen to suggest an incredibly maudlin and disgusting movie, one that I would not choose to pay for from among the hundreds of movies released each year. But that's a minor matter.

More relevantly, we are talking about a monster engaged in a monstrous war. Kyle's life and words are part of the public domain. For example, his hallucinations of murdering black people in New Orleans from the top of the Superdome are well-known.

If they released a movie called "Ted Bundy: Teen Hero," and paid $100 million to advertise it during NFL playoffs, you'd be entitled to have an opinion on it without needing to see the film.

Thank god someone finally told us war is hell.

Poor guy, he "has to" kill a child resisting the invasion of a foreign empire that has already destroyed his country. He has no choice!

It's important a great artist like Eastwood is here to remind us poignantly that war is hell and comes at great cost to the warrior, because otherwise we would have not noticed several thousand years worth of art in precisely this vein.

Does the film's propaganda campaign (quite apart from what I'm sure is a wonderful work) contribute to the rehabilitation of the most obviously criminal war of aggression in recent history? That's secondary to the greatness of the art! I'm sure it's the movie itself is not at all the disgusting maudlin celebration of murder and hypocrisy depicted in the commercials. Those are false advertising to work the box office, you know? Nothing wrong with that. All hail the dollar. Long as the movie allows critical minds like yours to detect/construct/fantasize a beautiful artistic context critical of war, who cares what the yahoos packing the theater think?

Tell me, how beautifully are the Iraqis humanized? I'm guessing maybe there are two spoken roles for them? That's usually how it works in this kind of highly subtle art work. From this film's most important recent predecessor in the cinema of American sociopaths engaged in imperial genocide, "Hurt Locker," we know Iraqis are only ever likely to say one of two things: "Help me, American!" (just before being blown up) and "Allahu Akhbar!!!" (just before blowing themselves up).

Here's another great movie that also teaches, among other things, that War Is Hell:



So unfair that this was ignored in the awards. I'm sure the Academy will stand tall and honor the great American sequel.

American Sniper L.A. billboard tagged with "Murder!"



http://www.people.com/article/american-sniper-billboard-tagged-murder

A mildly reassuring sign.

Click here to watch "American Sniper" short version

He has not authorized police riots against the protesters.

There hasn't been enough pepper-spray, mass arrest, billy-clubbing, curb-stomping, use of ear-piercing Pentagon crowd-dispersal weapons, etc. Not that there hasn't been some of the above, just slightly less than under Bloomberg. The openly fascist leadership (and apparent majority) of the NYPD, like Lynch, have this idea that Bloomberg or Giuliani would have allowed them to do a lot more stomping on the protesters, whom they see as lawless anarchist cop-hating criminal dangerous un-American foreign sub-human etc. To them, anything less than a heartily-endorsed police state and utter demonization of the protests is capitulation to communism. Long before the protests got big, De Blasio actually held a press conference in which he allowed the cops to mock-arrest him -- with real handcuffs -- in showing how an obedient citizen never "resists arrest" (as if the coppers always give you a choice -- in reality, they're stomping people long before there is any chance of "resisting arrest," like with Garner). So there it was: The Mayor, cuffed, being put into a paddy wagon. Not even this symbolism is enough for the pig majority among the cops, however.

De Blasio could march out in front of the cops swinging the lead billy club and they'd still think him soft. Cops are hands-down the most fascist demographic employed in New York City. Not that most of them actually live in New York City, since they do not. They commute to a job they perceive as keeping the lid on a zoo of violent, dangerous animals. They think they're universally hated -- not quite true, though they try hard to alienate everyone they deal with -- despite the endless propaganda telling them how they are the greatest bravest most wonderful people doing the most important service in the world, etc. etc., and despite about fifteen hours of prime-time programming every week devoted to the same message, espcially about NYPD. Still they think you hate them and they hate you. And you voted for De Blasio instead of some guy who was more obviously a bootlicker.

A whole bunch of posting on this site...

is devoted to absolving the administration and the Democratic leadership of their role in this. The bait-and-switch of liberatory rhetoric during campaigns followed by total obedience to corporate capital once in power, causes many people to turn to the snake oils of the paleocons and ostensibly anti-statist libertarians.

People are disaffected with repression and the surveillance state, war on drugs, militarism and imperialism, and the general kowtow to bankers and corporations and neoliberal policy. Seeing what the Democrats do, they fall for the rhetoric of the libertarian salesmen.

In response, instead of calls for the Democrats to finally start doing the right things on these issues, you have all the posts here demonizing, not just the Pauls (and rightly so, for the most part) but also attacking anyone who is concerned with these issues. Altogether superfluous "Fuck Paul" threads become a daily, ritualized two-minutes hate.

The point, again: to absolve Democratic leadership of their role, to present them as blameless and entirely good. It must be screamed and repeated that Democrats are actually extremely progressive and getting all they can against the Republican opposition on all these issues (within the realm of the possible, you understand, don't be naive and don't be asking for no ponies, kay?). Anyone who says otherwise (even if from a leftist critique) is secretly or unconsciously WORKING FOR PAUL!!! A total dichotomy is set up. Its logic is team fandom: Are you with us, or are you with Rand Paul?

One wishes this kind of dichotomy would be reserved (and actually used) where it makes sense: For example, Are you for the survival of the human species, or are you with the fossil fuel industry? Are you for human rights, or are you for a surveillance state? Are you for human rights and justice, or are you for continuing drug prohibition? Are you for reality, or do you think permanent-growth economics can be sustained in the long term?

Instead we're asked if we fly a blue flag or a red one.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 67 Next »