KRS-1 outrages blacks worldwide

[abdulmohammad]

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1014krs14-ON.html

Knight Ridder Newspapers
Oct. 14, 2004 03:08 PM

If Osama bin Laden ever buys a rap album, he'll probably start with a CD by KRS-One.

The hip-hop anarchist has declared his solidarity with al-Qaida by asserting that he and other African-Americans "cheered when 9-11 happened," reports the New York Daily News.

The rapper, real name Kris Parker, defiled the memory of those who died in the terrorist attacks as he spouted off at a recent New Yorker Festival panel discussion. advertisement


"I say that proudly," the Boogie Down Productions founder went on, insisting that, before the attack, security guards kept Blacks out of the World Trade Center "because of the way we talk and dress.

"So when the planes hit the building, we were like, 'Mmmm - justice.' "

The atrocity of 9-11 "doesn't affect us the hip-hop community," he said. "9-11 happened to them, not us," he added, explaining that by "them" he meant "the rich ... those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations."

Parker also sneered at efforts by other rappers to get young people to vote.

"Voting in a corrupt society adds more corruption," he added. "America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place."

[Ace42]

Not here. I know lots of people who were in no way shape or form horrified to learn that the WTC collapsed. Infact, my friends were in a pub singing "she fell over, she fell over!" when I phoned them to tell them the second tower went down.

[ScarySquirrel]

http://www.allhiphop.com/editorial/?ID=218

Like everyone I was shocked to read that I and other African-Americans actually “cheered when 911 happened” and that I have “declared my solidarity with Al Qaeda”. When I read my words taken out of context I was shocked and disappointed that the Daily News would go this far to assassinate my character and distort my views.

Such statements with no follow up explanation or interview from KRS-ONE as to what he may have meant or even a complete quote of my point is simply irresponsible journalism on the Daily News’ part. I would never just say something as crazy as “we cheered when 911 happened!” I was making an objective point about how many Hiphoppas as well as the oppressed peoples of the world felt that day.

I am a philosopher and a critical thinker, I speak truth and I urge people to think critically about themselves and their environment. Yes, my words are strong. Yes, my views are controversial. But to call me a terrorist is simply wrong!

A young lady asked about what we can do beyond voting to change the political state of things in our country? I responded not by irresponsibly stating that “America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place” and that’s all. I am a poet and I speak poetically. My full statement was “America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place.

If you want to go beyond voting American interests must put a gun to its head and commit suicide because as long as we are only interested in American interests we go out and invade the rest of the world. The real question is are you a citizen of the United States or are you a citizen of the world? And so for me, I would say voting in a corrupt society adds more corruption.”

I was asked by the New Yorker magazine to discuss “different and personal beliefs musicians hold and the contribution artists like myself can make to the nation’s political dialog”. My views were indeed different and most were personal. However, when I was asked about why Hiphop has not engaged the current situation more (meaning 911) my responds was “because it does not affect us, or at least we don’t perceive that it effects us, 911 happened to them”. I went on to say that “I am speaking for the culture now; I am not speaking my personal opinion”. I continued to say; “911 effected them down the block; the rich, the powerful those that are oppressing us as a culture. Sony, RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations, Clear Channel, Viacom with BET and MTV, those are our oppressors those are the people that we’re trying to overcome in Hiphop everyday, this is a daily thing. We cheered when 911 happened in New York and say that proudly here. Because when we were down at the trade center we were getting hit over the head by cops, told that we can’t come in this building, hustled down to the train station because of the way we dressed and talked, and so on, we were racially profiled. So, when the planes hit the building we were like; mmmm justice.” And just as I began to say “now of course a lot of our friends and family were lost there as well” but I was interrupted.

My intent is never to demean or disrespect anyone’s loss or gain; and of course I did not literally “cheer when 911 happened”. I made an objective statement about the feelings of those who were oppressed by world trade policies. I was just as saddened as everyone else on 911. However, for many of us that were racially profiled and harassed by the World’s Trade Center’s security and the police patrolling that area as well as the thousands of American protesters that spoke out against the World Trade Organization months before in Seattle, Washington there was a sense of justice, a sense of change, a wake up call watching the twin towers fall.

These are not my views only; these views represent a popular truth that few people are really ready to hear. No one wished death on anyone or just sat and “cheered when 911 happened”. But some of us can see through the bullshit! America must change its approach to the world and its citizens. This, I believe is what all Americans should be thinking about. How do we make our country better?

For years my career has been one of promoting peace, love, unity and having fun; such has always been Hiphop’s cultural principles. So how all of a sudden now can I be aligned with Al Qaeda? What happened to honest debate and freedom of speech! I don’t speak for the African American community exclusively, I speak for HIPHOP! And let me be clear here; most of the Hiphop community is against the war in Iraq! But to align me with Al Qaeda is clearly an attempt by the Daily News to interrupt the street voice of our Hiphop community, KRS-ONE’s leadership and the increased momentum of our Hiphop political movement.

I don’t think Al Qaeda needs my solidarity nor did I ever offer it, so what’s the point. For a major news organization to now align KRS-ONE with Al Qaeda shows the unwarranted contempt that such an organization has for me. Such is grounds for a law suit!

Finally, no one should ever believe anything that the one-sided Daily News has to say about the same Hiphop community that it (the Daily News) has tried so desperately to undermine for years. The only thing the Daily News seems to be interested in is scandal and controversy and for years I have challenged the Daily News on its depictions of Rap artists and Hiphop as a whole.

I know they don’t like me. However, I don’t give a ---- either! They never cover our efforts toward peace and all the charitable work we do within the Hiphop community. They never air our grievances or how we feel about the state of the world, nor have they ever aired our views on America’s invasion of Iraq simply because they just don’t want to hear them. The Hiphop community forces America to look at itself; and no one likes to take b.l.a.m.e. for their own for immaturity Because Looking At Me ain’t Easy!

For the record, I am an American philosopher. I speak and seek truth. If the slander that the Daily News has printed regarding my political views has disrespectfully offended anyone in any way I truly apologize. Again, it was never my or Hiphop’s intent to disregard, disrespect or demean the tragedy of September 11th 2001 and those that died that day.

However, we do have a voice and a point of view and if you are not prepared to hear what Hiphop has to say about its view of world events then don’t ask!

[DroppinScience]

I once knew this guy who was like:

"That was so fucking awesome when 9/11 happened. They SO deserved it! I hate the USA!" [Never mind the fact that the two of us were working in a megaplex movie theatre and he was lapping up all the latest Hollywood blockbusters]

And then I go:

"What about the people in those buildings? They deserved to die?!?"

He goes: "Well that was fucking horrible, but the US so had it coming. Whoever did it, good on them. Next time just don't kill so many people."

Truly unbelievable.

Overall, he's a great guy, but we just can't discuss 9/11, because he's too blinded with petty hatred for America to see what really happened. Would he be cheering if someone rammed planes into buildings in China killing 3 000 people? He sure wouldn't because he'd be seen as racist. Even though China's government policies are horrible, does that mean the answer is killing innocent people? NO! So there shouldn't be this double standard when it comes to America.

Oh and who gives a crap if your "black" self was outraged about what KRS-One said? He's got the first amendment, so he can exercise it. I'm not gonna buy his albums (his collaboration on "Radio Song" by REM rocked, though!), but I ain't gonna stop him from expressing his views, no matter how fundamentally wrong they are.

[DroppinScience]

Big ups to Scary Squirrel for posting that KRS-One statement! (y)

[laserx54]

stuff like 9/11 happens all over the world but we just shrug it off, until it happens to us


we guilted the entire world to feel sorry for us.


people get all up in arms when people criticize the attacks. yeah it was bad, but you gotta put it in a world perspective.


krs one rules

[DroppinScience]

stuff like 9/11 happens all over the world but we just shrug it off, until it happens to us


we guilted the entire world to feel sorry for us.


people get all up in arms when people criticize the attacks. yeah it was bad, but you gotta put it in a world perspective.


krs one rules

I understand that completely, but I don't know about you but I'm not going to dismiss the loss of thousands of HUMAN LIVES based on their nationality.

I'm sure not going "Haha, all those thousands of people in Iraq got bombed, GOOD for them because Saddam was an asshole"

That shit is reprehensibly horrible and I'm not for one second a believer in having that reversed for any other country, including the US. I don't care if there's idiots like Toby Keith populating the nation, human lives are human lives.

[SobaViolence]

i said it before and i'll say it again

relativity is a bitch.


3,000 die in WTC, IMMENSE hoopla
1,000,000 die over 10 years of sanctions in Iraq, USA JUSTIFIES ITS GENOCIDE

no one life is worth more than another...either all war, hatred, rape and violence is outrageous, or none of it is.
800,000 PEOPLE died in Rwanda, and we just sat on our asses.


FUCK THE UNITED STATES.

[DroppinScience]

i said it before and i'll say it again

relativity is a bitch.


3,000 die in WTC, IMMENSE hoopla
1,000,000 die over 10 years of sanctions in Iraq, USA JUSTIFIES ITS GENOCIDE

no one life is worth more than another...either all war, hatred, rape and violence is outrageous, or none of it is.
800,000 PEOPLE died in Rwanda, and we just sat on our asses.


FUCK THE UNITED STATES.

All true stuff... UNTIL you said "Fuck the United States." So does that mean American lives are irrelevant, despite the fact that you previously said "no one life is worth more than another." I smell contradiction.

Don't forget, us Canadians didn't do too much either when it came to Rwanda. :(

[D_Raay]

Maybe he means that when something bad happens to Americans, it gets "super-sized", if you will.
I mean, when an Iraqi dies is it less significant than an American?
We are all human after all right? This country exploits DEATH. One of the most embarassing and shameful things about America IMHO. Where's the world solidarity and coming together for Russia? Spain? Hell, Iraq?! We just keep on killing them . Is it any less horrible to be killed by Napalm or an M-16 or a smart bomb than to be killed by an airplane? Was it the unexpectedness or the severity of the attack that made the lives lost that much more important?
We watch reality TV and make a big deal out of husbands killing their wives and basketball players raping(or not) white women and just about any other sensationalistic story that rears it's ugly head and just gobble it down on our couch holding our cheap beer and trying to stay awake because we are just to damn tired from having to work all the time because EVERYTHING is so goddamn expensive in this country.
Death is death one way or another. To say that American lives are so much more important than others around the world shows the very arrogance and ambiguity of our culture and the shame of living in a country where almost no one recognizes the fundamental lack of decency and moral eptitude of our elected officials. The world is in a frightening state and becomes worse all the time.

[Ace42]

All true stuff... UNTIL you said "Fuck the United States." So does that mean American lives are irrelevant, despite the fact that you previously said "no one life is worth more than another." I smell contradiction.

No, you smell mathematical fact. Saying that the World Trade Centre was 53 times less relevant than the first invasion of Iraq is not incongruent, it is in total mathematical agreement with his statement. Saying it is 10th as important as the current invasion is the same.

That is not including the post-war deaths due to sanctions, etc.

His point is totally justified, IF you are being objective. Yes that means being clinical, almost callous, but hell, that is what war is about, no?

As for your buddy, he also has a point. In the words of the Cybermen "There are people dying all over your world, and yet you do not cry for them."

If you go kicking hornets nests, you are gonna get stung. My sympathy is therefore at a minimum. My resentment (in the form of higher taxes, my countrymen and my family being at greater risk, in terms of maintaining global injustice, etc, etc) however has only been fed.

When resentment > sympathy, how do you expect people to view it?

[DroppinScience]

No, you smell mathematical fact. Saying that the World Trade Centre was 53 times less relevant than the first invasion of Iraq is not incongruent, it is in total mathematical agreement with his statement. Saying it is 10th as important as the current invasion is the same.

That is not including the post-war deaths due to sanctions, etc.

His point is totally justified, IF you are being objective. Yes that means being clinical, almost callous, but hell, that is what war is about, no?

As for your buddy, he also has a point. In the words of the Cybermen "There are people dying all over your world, and yet you do not cry for them."

If you go kicking hornets nests, you are gonna get stung. My sympathy is therefore at a minimum. My resentment (in the form of higher taxes, my countrymen and my family being at greater risk, in terms of maintaining global injustice, etc, etc) however has only been fed.

When resentment > sympathy, how do you expect people to view it?

Wait, I said everything was right in that post... EXCEPT for the last line. My apologies if I don't hate the United States like you all. :p

[Bob]

some people seem to have an inability to separate a country's population and national policy, i swear. like DS said, china's doing some fucked up shit but the solution isn't to kill chinese people.

[Ace42]

some people seem to have an inability to separate a country's population and national policy, i swear.

Yah, because all countries employ foreign nationals in their army, their government, their manufacturing industries, etc...

Stop washing your hands, Pontius.

[DroppinScience]

some people seem to have an inability to separate a country's population and national policy, i swear. like DS said, china's doing some fucked up shit but the solution isn't to kill chinese people.

That's exactly what I think people are missing here.

China subjugates Tibet, says you can only have one child (and if that first child is a girl, better kill her!), blah blah blah blah, so the resentment is there. However, I'm not gonna "Fuck China, you SO had it coming!" if planes are rammed into buildings in Beijing. That's fundamentally wrong.

I also hold a lot of resentment for the policies of YOUR nation Ace (UK) for its policies towards Northern Ireland and untold acts of imperialist atrocities abroad. Tomorrow if the Big Ben is rammed with an airplane (if that doesn't work, pick a building populated with lots of people), the last thing I'm gonna say is "You had it coming, Britain! You raping the Third World and with your shitty teeth, you got served!"

Am I on to something or is my point completely moot because the U.S. is not composed of human beings worthy of anybody's sympathy?

[adam_f]

I just bought KRS-1's 'Keep Right' album. Pretty good.

[afronaut]

basically what you're saying is if I live in an apartment complex, and the guy who owns and runs the complex is a total evil dipshit, I deserve to be punished, as long as the owner gets hurt too? Lets say your mom died in the world trade center. Are you saying its ok your mom died because America is evil?

Hey, a tragedy is a tragedy. Just because more people recognize one tragedy over other tragedies means you say "good", it means you still recognize that tragedy while you try to raise awareness of the other tragedies.

[Ace42]

China subjugates Tibet, says you can only have one child (and if that first child is a girl, better kill her!),

China's a communist republic last I checked. They have a long standing reputation for having an unaccountable and habitually secretive government. The US is supposedly the home of the free, not a third world totalitarian nation.

I also hold a lot of resentment for the policies of YOUR nation Ace (UK) for its policies towards Northern Ireland and untold acts of imperialist atrocities abroad.

The policies of half a century or more ago. And when the UK handed over power to governments, we didn't keep our armies there for years, and they had the good manners to wait several years before embarking on civil wars. The UK has paid the price for its policies to *The Republic of Ireland* in blood, and the situation is finally being resolved. The UK government is not about to annex other countries any time soon, thankyou very much. And how did Northern Ireland effect you personally? Not at all I'd wager. The war in Iraq puts every member of the first world at risk.

(if that doesn't work, pick a building populated with lots of people), the last thing I'm gonna say is "You had it coming, Britain! You raping the Third World and with your shitty teeth, you got served!"

What about the post-office tower? Oh yes, that did get bombed by the IRA, and I don't recall bleeting about it like a sheep.

Am I on to something or is my point completely moot because the U.S. is not composed of human beings worthy of anybody's sympathy?

You are not on to something. People have paid the price for the error, and learnt from it (although not well enough the current war in Iraq would seem to indicate, although the majority resentment of the war would well suggest otherwise) and are doing their level best to improve the situation. But, however, the UK government and citizens do NOT have a constitution that outlines a founding premise of the realm. We do not live in a republic, we have not suceeded from the monarchy. We do not have a piece of paper outlining exactly what the limitations and circumstances of office are. Under UK law, treaties are merely rules we have agreed to go along with, not *supported by the very founding and overiding directives of the nation*.

The UK has done plenty of despicable shit (over a century ago when the rest of the world didn't know any better either) - but we never had a core foundation telling us to do otherwise.

So, considering the US's constitution and the virtues is claims to espouse, what is the excuse there? The armed forces that commit the atrocities are made up of and direct by the citizens of the US, not "The Royal Army" which belong to and are loyal to an individual.

[ASsman]

So, if American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives, why not merely train an Iraqi army. Instead of bum rushing Iraq with US troops. Why not just blow the shit out of Iraq, and mop up afterwards. It would decrease the now 1,000+ downed soldiers.

Or is it that all life is indeed equal. In which case the US did deserve it, and all those ignorant to the facts paid with their lives.

[DroppinScience]

You are not on to something. People have paid the price for the error, and learnt from it (although not well enough the current war in Iraq would seem to indicate, although the majority resentment of the war would well suggest otherwise) and are doing their level best to improve the situation. But, however, the UK government and citizens do NOT have a constitution that outlines a founding premise of the realm. We do not live in a republic, we have not suceeded from the monarchy. We do not have a piece of paper outlining exactly what the limitations and circumstances of office are. Under UK law, treaties are merely rules we have agreed to go along with, not *supported by the very founding and overiding directives of the nation*.

The UK has done plenty of despicable shit (over a century ago when the rest of the world didn't know any better either) - but we never had a core foundation telling us to do otherwise.

So, considering the US's constitution and the virtues is claims to espouse, what is the excuse there? The armed forces that commit the atrocities are made up of and direct by the citizens of the US, not "The Royal Army" which belong to and are loyal to an individual.

Ah, so you are raging against US hypocrisy? Since the British have totally admitted to being evil, they're off the hook since they're transparent. I love how your mind works, Ace. ;)

Actually the UK CONTINUES to do plenty of despicable shit. Your man Blair joining Bush's Iraq war is plenty worthy of the imperial atrocities the UK committed way back in the day.

But again, if there's a terrorist attack and you're one of the casualties, I won't say you deserved it just because the Queen has blood on her hands.

[Ace42]

I concur the UK role in Iraq is deplorable, but as the UK make up like 5% of the contingent there, I think some perspective on the situation is in order.

5% of the WTC disaster is < 150 people. That is small potatoes compared to the number of English people killed due to IRA action. Also the fact that a significant percentage of UK casualties in Iraq came from US fire tells its own tale. However, when the UK gets a Madrid style bombing, if it doesn't top 150, I will not be particularly offended. If that number (or surplus) contained anyone I cared about personally (other than myself, as I would be dead in that scenario) then I would blame Blair and the idiots who voted for him (and Bush for making such an atrocity possible, and thus by extensions the idiots who voted for him)

Kenneth Bigley and his family have said as much themselves. Yeah it's a shame the terrorists can't pinpoint people who (to a greater or lesser degree) support the acts of their government, but conventionally an electorial system guarantees that any random victims of a terrorist attack will be mainly people who support the actions of their duly elected government. When Al Qaeda bomb a group of protestors, or an anti-war rally, etc *then* the victims might be able to say how horribly unfair it is.

"We didn't SUPPORT Bush, but we were too busy with our own lives to do anything about him curtailing the lives of others" - well guess what, the intended recipients of Bush's policies have managed to make the issue moot. Guess flipping burgers, or trading stocks, or selling used cars ISN'T more important than some distant arab nation's well being afterall, eh?

If anything, it illustrates that spending your life working for your own self-interest instead of working solely for the wellbeing of others *can* be self-detrimental.

Incidently, I get to pontificate about this sort of thing because I do not in any way shape or form support this system (via production, taxation or apathy) and actually invest a lot of time to deal with it...

I think I kinda lost the plot somewhere there.

[DroppinScience]

Kenneth Bigley and his family have said as much themselves. Yeah it's a shame the terrorists can't pinpoint people who (to a greater or lesser degree) support the acts of their government, but conventionally an electorial system guarantees that any random victims of a terrorist attack will be mainly people who support the actions of their duly elected government. When Al Qaeda bomb a group of protestors, or an anti-war rally, etc *then* the victims might be able to say how horribly unfair it is.

That logic sounds disingenuous. Aren't a LOT of the 9/11 victims' families quite opposed to Bush's actions?

Unless something like the RNC is bombed, I don't think we all can generalize the extent of support among the casualties. BESIDES, they did strike New York, a town full of effete latte drinking liberals and plenty of foreigners. ;)

[Ace42]

That logic sounds disingenuous. Aren't a LOT of the 9/11 victims' families quite opposed to Bush's actions?

Unless something like the RNC is bombed, I don't think we all can generalize the extent of support among the casualties. BESIDES, they did strike New York, a town full of effete latte drinking liberals and plenty of foreigners.

They might be subsequently (having had their families suffer because of US policy and subsequent extension of it) which unfortunately only goes towards legitimising terrorism. And I am not sure what stigma and lables are attatched to NY. It might well be that NY has a lot of long-haired lefties desperately trying to offset the massive southern influence. On the other hand, as one of the wealthiest cities in the US, I'd imagine that it is merely proof of Tom Stoppard's aphorism: Stoic principles are best borne by those of epicurean habits.

[afronaut]

So, Osama and al quada are the good guys?

[Ace42]

Depends how you define "good". In my opinion, killing is never "good" - and that extends to soldiers as well as terrorists or anyone else. However, plenty of US citizens keep telling me "oh, you can't blame the soldiers" and "you have to support the troops" so merely having killed people (innocent or otherwise) would seem not to be a factor in deciding. So is it a question of scale? If so, Osama and Al Qaeda are substantially less evil than the US.

Does that make them good? Well, if you consider something that is "less bad" to be "good" then I guess. More accurate would be "better" - and more accurate still "not as bad"

It comes back to the point made about it being relative.

[DroppinScience]

I believe you just said Osama is GOOD! :p

[SobaViolence]

if you live in the USA there is no reason that you can not have your voice heard. I see all these movements in the States, and eventhough the mainstream media is a corporate walkie-talkie, there is no excuse. And yes, if you live in the united states of america, the government represents you and you are a symbol of the government.

just because you're lazy doesn't mean you can pass the buck.

i hate the united states for their celebrated ignorance, apathy and racism. If the USA wanted to stop Communist China, they could. period. but instead, they do business and have recently become great pals. the problem is the only viable answer to any problem is either trade(rich people with rich people) or war(poor people vs poor people)

don't piss in my ear and tell me it's rainning.

[ASsman]

I won't. And I'm sorry about last time.

More QUOTES!

Dave the Lighting Guy : I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but I think Depeche Mode is a sweet band!

Dave the Lighting Guy : Dude, I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but I think you got a hot ass!
Joe Young : Thanks.

Dave the Lighting Guy : Say, have you seen that movie Clash of the Titans?
Joe Young : Oh yeah, the greek mythology.
Dave the Lighting Guy : Hey, I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but I think unicorns are kick ass!

[Ace42]

if you live in the USA there is no reason that you can not have your voice heard. I see all these movements in the States, and eventhough the mainstream media is a corporate walkie-talkie, there is no excuse. And yes, if you live in the united states of america, the government represents you and you are a symbol of the government.

don't piss in my ear and tell me it's rainning.

My sentiments exactly! And it is more true of America than pretty much any other world nation.

[ericg]

(!) KRS-1 ROCK ON (!)

[afronaut]

i guess the fact that osama and al qaeda want an even more oppressive and theocratic government than the united states means nothing.

[Ace42]

Actually, Bush wants it to be more oppressive. He just knows that he has to do it on the quiet, via the patriot act, etc.

And "Al Qaeda" don't want anything as they don't really exist as a group. The name was given to them by the US government in order to use US organised crime conspiracy laws which require a named group to prosecute. I'd be highly skeptical of anyone saying what a group of unknown individuals who have been loosely plonked together for a matter of bureaucratic convenience stands for.

Since when has the US not propping up Israel been "A more oppressive and theocratic government" ? Since when has US soldiers getting the hell out of other countries been "A more oppressive and theocratic government" ?

How is letting Iraqis rule themselves as they see fit "More oppressive and theocratic" than invading a country, overthrowing their leader, instituting a puppet dictator in order to force a system of government on a people, a large percentage of which will not even get to vote?

What you mean is "how-Al-Qaeda-and-Osama's-stance-has-been-interpreted-by-a-biased-media is more oppresive than how-the-US-people-naively-like-to-think-of-themselves"

That's a very different story, and justifies nothing apart from contempt of US arrogance.

[afronaut]

So Osama never called for Jihad, and isn't a radical fundementalist Muslim? And Saddam was never a brutal dictator?

[Ace42]

So Osama never called for Jihad, and isn't a radical fundementalist Muslim?

And Bush didn't wage an illegal war (rather than just ranting about it from a cave) ? And isn't a fundamentalist Christian?

And Saddam was never a brutal dictator?

Saddam allegedly killed about 300,000 individuals in 30 years of reign. That is 100,000 a decade. In the previous Iraq war, the US killed 100,000 and that was in less than a year. By my calculations (and these are conservative US estimates, the actual number is probably significantly higher) that makes the former Bush administration (of which Colin Powel and Dick Cheney were members) at least 10x as brutal.

[afronaut]

So you rather would have lived in Iraq under saddam than in america under anybody?


And Bush didn't wage an illegal war (rather than just ranting about it from a cave) ? And isn't a fundamentalist Christian?

Osama targetted innocent civilians and attacked without warning. Now I'm just against the war as you, but Iraq knew we were going to attack them, and I'm pretty sure we don't just target civilian targets for maximum terror ownage.


Do you think Osama would hesitate to kill everone in America if he had the capability? What if Osama launched a huge terror attack on america killing the majority of the population off in about a week? Who would be more evil then?

What if Osama took over America? do you think his kind of government would be less opressive than America now? Would women be allowed to wear what they want outside? Or even inside? Would be able to complain about the government and protest when they do evil acts? Do you think once he had the same capabilities as America that he wouldn't hesitate for a second to invade the whole western world illegally and dwarf anything we've done in Iraq? Do you think he'd try to avoid civilian casualties at all? What do you think Osama is fighting for? Do you actually think he wants to tear down american opression and install some utopian socialist government free of all opression?

Hey, the government is pretty evil, you won't get me arguing that with you. I don't think Osama wants anything any better though. If the power was in Osama's hands instead of Bush's, who do you think would be more evil?

[DroppinScience]

C'mon Ace, just admit it: you HATE America. :p

[Ace42]

So you rather would have lived in Iraq under saddam than in america under anybody?

The rich country / winning country does not = the "right" country. I am not a muslim (Shia, Shiite, Sunni or otherwise) and thus do not fancy living in an Islamic theocracy. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be left to their own devices. Personally, I'd rather not live under the country being bombed by a bunch of slack-jawed fly-boys who are "just following orders, and lovin' it". That has no bearing on the argument.

If it comes to that, I'd rather live in the pleasure palace that is kept warm by the fresh blood of babies, than live in the baby pit. Your point?

Osama targetted innocent civilians and attacked without warning.

"Without warning" in that ignorant Americans had their heads in the sand. Or did the failed bomb-attept on the WTC not qualify as a hint that you had pissed off a few towel heads?

I'm pretty sure we don't just target civilian targets for maximum terror ownage. Since when has intentions come into it? "We don't target civillian targets to terrorise them, we do it because we believe in ethnic cleansing!" - yeah that sounds so much better. "We target innocent civillians so we can steal their oil" - well that will make the parentless crippled orphans dying of disease and starvation feel so much better.

Do you think Osama would hesitate to kill everone in America if he had the capability?

I don't know him personally, and quite possibly he is *just that pissed off* - however I think dismissing his point of view like that is counter-productive. I don't think he would kill everyone in America if he had the capability, because there would be no point. Yes killing everyone in America would solve the numerous problems he takes issue with, but then so would destroying all life on the planet, that does not mean he would do it. Quit buying into the propoganda, the guy isn't some sort of insane demon. "He's mad, absolutely crazy. And evil. And that makes him clever and cunning! But mad." Yeah, right.

What if Osama launched a huge terror attack on america killing the majority of the population off in about a week? Who would be more evil then?

If it took out the individuals found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

It would be an action worthy of a sainthood. I know I wouldn't miss them. However, if he hypothetically did that, then yes, he would be more evil. However, Bush is the one with his finger on the button. Bush is the one who has invaded another country in an illegal and unjustified war. So really, your question would be better phrased: "If Osama had more power than Bush, would he be worse" - well no, duh.

What if Osama took over America? do you think his kind of government would be less opressive than America now?

It would be less prejudiced against Muslims for starters.

Would women be allowed to wear what they want outside? Or even inside?

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=35220

Would be able to complain about the government and protest when they do evil acts?

Sorry, weren't Kucinich and some other third party candidate arrested whilst protesting not being allowed to participate in an electoral debate? Or was that a hallucination?

Also:
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=26002&highlight=free+speech+zones
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=25638&highlight=free+speech+zones

Do you think once he had the same capabilities as America that he wouldn't hesitate for a second to invade the whole western world illegally and dwarf anything we've done in Iraq?

Name one thing that indicates Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda are interested in invasion or conquest. Paranoid fear-mongering. They have a beef with the US because of Israel, because of the former Iraq war, because of invasion etc. Yeah if they were in the same boat as America, they might be as bad, but they aren't. It just makes you look ignorant to build a case on the personal motives of an individual you know nothing about. For all you know, behind closed doors, George Bush wanks himself off while thinking about burning the face off every non-white non-christian in the world. I am not levelling such a spacious charge against him, so it is not fair or justified to level such wild and unfounded speculation against Osama.

Do you think he'd try to avoid civilian casualties at all?

And the US is? Or is "not nuking the whole region" an act of benificance?

What do you think Osama is fighting for? Do you actually think he wants to tear down american opression

Well, what do you think he is fighting for? To "put out the light of freedom that is America" as Uncle George would have you believe? Come on. He's fighting to exact revenge upon the country which has persecuted more of his religious brethren than any other. The country that killed over 100,000 civillians in the last Iraq war, that has stationed troops in every other Muslim nation, that has interferred in the internal running of every other Muslim nation, that has aidded and abetted the persecution of Palestine for years, that has stolen mineral wealth of every other Muslim nation for years. The are ignoring the mere fact that American society is inherantly offensive and hostile to even their closest allies. So yeah, I do think he wants to tear down American oppresion (in itself a laudable aim) - the fact that he would quite like to see a theocratic Islamic state instituted in his place is less laudable, but to suggest it would be quantifiably "worse" is speculative in the extreme. It would be worse for YOU (just like the Saddam being deposed is worse for the vast majority of Iraqis) but much BETTER for Islamic fundamentalists. And to be honest, at the moment they seem a lot more reasonable than the majority of shit-for-brains yanks spreading hypocrisy like monkey-AIDS.

and install some utopian socialist government free of all opression? No, I do not think they will suceed where the US has failed, they would merely fail in a different way.

I don't think Osama wants anything any better though. If the power was in Osama's hands instead of Bush's, who do you think would be more evil?

You don't know anything about Osama other than that "he is the enemy" and that he allegedly says "It's a good idea to kill the people that are killing our people"

Now apply that to George Bush - without the name infront of the statement, it is impossible to tell which is which.

[Ace42]

C'mon Ace, just admit it: you HATE America. :p

What, hate these sparkling virtuosos of human nobility and humility:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

As if I could have a problem with such insightful and cultured intellectuals.

I love America because a nation packed to bursting with ignorant biggots gives me a real hard-on.

[SobaViolence]

I love America because a nation packed to bursting with ignorant biggots gives me a real hard-on.

(y)

[DroppinScience]

What, hate these sparkling virtuosos of human nobility and humility:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

As if I could have a problem with such insightful and cultured intellectuals.

I love America because a nation packed to bursting with ignorant biggots gives me a real hard-on.

Unlike adam_f, I do appreciate that you take things seriously. BUT by the same token, you could learn to take a joke once in awhile. :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

I got it, my reply was jocular, although I appreciate the heavy handed sarcasm, and pointed substance of the reply might've made it seem over-serious.

[100% ILL]

What, hate these sparkling virtuosos of human nobility and humility:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

As if I could have a problem with such insightful and cultured intellectuals.

I love America because a nation packed to bursting with ignorant biggots gives me a real hard-on.


So you've formulated your opinion of Americans (a nation packed to bursting with ignorant biggots) based on this article. It can be argued that most people are rude and mean most of the time, especially when you can't see them (internet). I cannot help but think you sound disenchanted with people, especially American people. Typically people do what they do because they are selfish, not because they care about any universal right. I don't know mabey you're just in a bad mood today.

[afronaut]

I live in the deep south, so I know what you mean about all the ignorant fucks. But every country has ignorant pieces of shit.

You saying America is bursting with ignorant bigots is no different than someone saying afghanistan is bursting with women hating camel fucking towel heads.

You see, your thinking is just as black and white as any conservative. You think America = wrong must mean anyone against america = right. If america pulled an act like september 11, you wouldn't be trying to justify it at all. I'm not going to try to justify anything that America does wrong, and I'm not going to try to justify anything that anyone against America does wrong either.

Are Osama and the terrorists not motivated by any religious reasons at all?

[Ace42]

So you've formulated your opinion of Americans (a nation packed to bursting with ignorant biggots) based on this article. It can be argued that most people are rude and mean most of the time, especially when you can't see them (internet). I cannot help but think you sound disenchanted with people, especially American people. Typically people do what they do because they are selfish, not because they care about any universal right. I don't know mabey you're just in a bad mood today.

This (recent) article is really just the straw that broke the camel's back. I have had to personally deal with a number of ignorant and obnoxious Americans, and they far outweight the rational ones (of which there are several prime examples on this forum) which appear to be an incredibly small minority. Just look at the crackpots like Abdul, Tone Capone, Sisko, Scotbe, etc. Absolute crank-handles to a man, and this is supposedly (as they keep telling us) a lefty biased forum for a lefty shirt-lifting band.

The people that replied were not selected solely because they are offensive or bad examples (If you check, there was the occasional polite, interested, supportive, grateful, etc reply on the site) but because they represent a cross-section (and look at the places, they come from all over the country) of joe-average.

I guess I am disenchanted with Americans, but hell, you have a constitution and a bill of rights which extend the noble premises that founded your country in the declaration of independance - that is more than most countries have. And yet out of all the countries in the world, the US is currently the most regressive and insular. Even Gaddaffi's Libya is more keen to engage in international discourse and globalisation (rather than global imperialism).

I think in a lot of ways, the US is Milton's Lucifer. One of the brightest lights, fallen the lowest through pride, arrogance and selfishness.

[Ace42]

I live in the deep south, so I know what you mean about all the ignorant fucks. But every country has ignorant pieces of shit.

In other countries, they do not form a majority, and they do not get elected president. We call them "the BNP" here...

You saying America is bursting with ignorant bigots is no different than someone saying afghanistan is bursting with women hating camel fucking towel heads. It might well be, my correspondance with Afghanistanis is woefully insufficient to get a clear insight. Mainly because the US managed to bomb their services into the stoneage, but also due to their status as a third world nation. Afghanistanis have plenty of excuses. What is yours?

You think America = wrong must mean anyone against america = right.

Rubbish. That is what *you think I think* and *that* is black and white thinking. I have never said anything even vaugely equating to that, and nor would I propose such a logical fallacy.

If america pulled an act like september 11, you wouldn't be trying to justify it at all.

I call it like I see it. If there were justifications to be made, I would make them.

Are Osama and the terrorists not motivated by any religious reasons at all?

Religion, like patriotism / duty / liberation is ALWAYS a sophistry for war.

"The Crusades were motivated by religion" - yeah, and it had nothing to do with the fact that the former wealth of Byzantium was there for the taking, and was only coincidence that Byzantine artifacts turned up all across Europe afterwards. Because God told them to break his commandments and plunder."

"The Jews were persecuted in WW2 because of their religion" - yeah, and the fact that they were the wealthiest people in Germany at a time when the government desperately needed a scape-goat is a coincidence; as is the fact that communists (who are all, by definition, aethiest), slavs and poles, and any political opposition to the Nazi party all got put into concentration camps.

"the IRA terrorist attacks and secular violence in Northern Ireland is motivated by religion" - And the fact that the land was stolen in an invasion hundreds of years before, and the fact that all over the world catholics and protestants can live side by side without even the slightest bit of antagonism is just coincidence.

Religion is an illusion. It's smoke and mirrors. It's a load of BS used to try and paint a respectable coating on the dirty, grimy rusty surface of the truth.

[afronaut]

This (recent) article is really just the straw that broke the camel's back. I have had to personally deal with a number of ignorant and obnoxious Americans, and they far outweight the rational ones (of which there are several prime examples on this forum) which appear to be an incredibly small minority. Just look at the crackpots like Abdul, Tone Capone, Sisko, Scotbe, etc. Absolute crank-handles to a man, and this is supposedly (as they keep telling us) a lefty biased forum for a lefty shirt-lifting band.

The people that replied were not selected solely because they are offensive or bad examples (If you check, there was the occasional polite, interested, supportive, grateful, etc reply on the site) but because they represent a cross-section (and look at the places, they come from all over the country) of joe-average.

I guess I am disenchanted with Americans, but hell, you have a constitution and a bill of rights which extend the noble premises that founded your country in the declaration of independance - that is more than most countries have. And yet out of all the countries in the world, the US is currently the most regressive and insular. Even Gaddaffi's Libya is more keen to engage in international discourse and globalisation (rather than global imperialism).

I think in a lot of ways, the US is Milton's Lucifer. One of the brightest lights, fallen the lowest through pride, arrogance and selfishness.


i definitely agree with that.

i still don't think anyone deserves to be blown up though.

[NakedMoleRat]

Getting back to KRS One:

Anyone who doesnt listen or know anything about Kris parker cannot accurately judge him.

We are talking about the man who started the "Stop the Violence" movement in Hip Hop. Up there with Chuck D as one of the most intellegent rappers. I'd rather have KRS as president than Bush or Kerry, hes fucking intellegent as hell. Of course he was sad about the death and destruction, he was totally misquoted.
Peace

[Whois]

If it comes to that, I'd rather live in the pleasure palace that is kept warm by the fresh blood of babies, than live in the baby pit. Your point?

:) (y)

[SobaViolence]

One of the brightest lights, fallen the lowest through pride, arrogance and selfishness.


damn. that's on the money.

[DroppinScience]

Getting back to KRS One:

Anyone who doesnt listen or know anything about Kris parker cannot accurately judge him.

We are talking about the man who started the "Stop the Violence" movement in Hip Hop. Up there with Chuck D as one of the most intellegent rappers. I'd rather have KRS as president than Bush or Kerry, hes fucking intellegent as hell. Of course he was sad about the death and destruction, he was totally misquoted.
Peace

Lemme quote Sublime: "And I know. And I know because of KRS-1."

[afronaut]

Saddam allegedly killed about 300,000 individuals in 30 years of reign. That is 100,000 a decade. In the previous Iraq war, the US killed 100,000 and that was in less than a year. By my calculations (and these are conservative US estimates, the actual number is probably significantly higher) that makes the former Bush administration (of which Colin Powel and Dick Cheney were members) at least 10x as brutal.

So in other words, first you want to say the invasion of Iraq is more of evil than the September 11th attacks because more innocent people died. But now you want to say the first Iraq war was more evil than Saddam's reign, even though more people died under Saddam's reign, because the average of people dying in a year was more than in Saddam's reign.


If you're going by that, didn't 3,000 people die in a matter of HOURS during the september 11th attacks? I don't know how many hours exactly.

But if you're going to speculate like that and go on the average of people killed in the shortest amount of time, whats 3,000 people dying every few hours for one year? How many times more brutal is that then?

I dunno, but I think thats quite significantly more than the US ever killed anywhere in recent memory. Not counting Hiroshima of course.

I'm not trying to justify any war, but it seemed like you contradicted yourself there.

So which is it then? Is the ultimate amount of innocent people dead in the end what really defines the most amount of evil, like you said earlier?

Is 300,000 innocent dead more evil than 100,00 and 3,000 dead?

Or is 100,000 dead in one year more evil than 300,000 in 30 dead in 30 years because it took less amount of time to kill the 100,000, meaning that if the US went on any longer it would have eventually dwarfed the 300,000, but stopped before that many died.

And if you're going by the second one, 3,000 dead in a matter of hours is still the hypothetical most evil over both of them. You'd be forced to concur.

[SobaViolence]

10,000 people will die today because of HIV/AIDS.


so shut the fuck up.

[afronaut]

He used two different standards for two different people. I called out his mistake.

and all you can come up with is "shut the fuck up"?

I don't see what HIV/AIDS has to do with anything. I do think the government should do more to prevent it, over here and various other parts of the world.

[Ace42]

If you're going by that, didn't 3,000 people die in a matter of HOURS during the september 11th attacks? I don't know how many hours exactly.

Actually, the WTC was targetted (unsucessfully) long before. Remember that bombing attempt that failed? Or what about the US embassy bombings?

How many times more brutal is that then?

Again, less. Check the stats.

I dunno, but I think thats quite significantly more than the US ever killed anywhere in recent memory. Not counting Hiroshima of course.

Heh, heaven forbid we count Hiroshima. What about the highway of death? 20,000 in a matter of hours. Again, I don't know how many hours, but still. Sorry, but your argument (spacious to say the least) is way too flimsy. Just give it up.

I'm not trying to justify any war, but it seemed like you contradicted yourself there.

Nup, clutching at straws, sorry.

Is 300,000 innocent dead more evil than 100,00 and 3,000 dead?

You tell me. Practically speaking, it is the sustainable rate that counts. The WTC was a one off. 3,000 was about the max achievable. With some better timing, that could go up a fair bit, but still. The Highway of Death was not a one off, that sort of operation can be executed again and again. However, this is not infinitely sustainable either. The reason there are so (comparitively) few casualties in Iraq this time around is because the army and many young men who would just about now be old enough to join the army were wiped out. Saddam was able to maintain a 10,000 a year rate, because that was presumably sustainable (again, these are generous figures, they do not take into account the fact that many of the mass-graves were thought to be from the Iran-Iraq war) The US managing to up this by a factor of 10 (and destroying the infrastructure) meant that the ability for the population to recooperate was substantially diminished. So, from that point of view, the US actions border on genocide.

Which do you think is more evil, mass-murder or genocide?

And before you bring up Halabja, a significant proportion of the US intelligence community think it was IRAN that gassed the Kurds. Like the incubator babies, blaming "the demon Saddam" was lies and spin.

meaning that if the US went on any longer it would have eventually dwarfed the 300,000, but stopped before that many died.

*ran out of people to kill* is closer. Now, which do you think is more brutal? Killing a small percentage of a population, or killing a massive one?

And if you're going by the second one, 3,000 dead in a matter of hours is still the hypothetical most evil over both of them. You'd be forced to concur.

Again, no. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai aside, the Highway of Death is 20,000 dead in pretty much the same timeframe. That's over 6x as bad.

[Ace42]

He used two different standards for two different people. I called out his mistake.


No, you used two different standards for two different scales of conflict. You compared an action (WTC) with a war (Desert Storm).

Compare it to another action (Highway of Death) and again, WTC was smaller.

[afronaut]

Actually, the WTC was targetted (unsucessfully) long before. Remember that bombing attempt that failed? Or what about the US embassy bombings?
Those are all three different acts. I don't know what your point is other than that Osama has tried to kill innocent civilians on more than one occasion.

Again, less. Check the stats.
A sneak attack purposely targeting a civilian target with no military connections isn't brutal then? Yeah, american's were living in a dreamland and should have been aware that they weren't in any danger of terrorist attacks. How is it justifiable to take potshots at purely civilian targets?

America has done some pretty despicable shit. I'm glad you brought up the Highway of Death because I forgot about that. I'll agree with you, that was horrible, at least on the same level as 9/11, at least.

They didn't attack because it was simply a civilian target though. It was to butcher the retreating Iraqi forces, which is a pretty scum thing to do, its like stabbing a wounded person on the back while he's laying face down on the ground with his legs broken. Still, it had military purposes.

America has done despicable shit. Osama has done despicable shit. It doesn't justify either one. It can make it so it can be explained rationally. It still doesn't justify total disregard for human life and purposely targetting civilians, on either side.

Heh, heaven forbid we count Hiroshima. What about the highway of death? 20,000 in a matter of hours. Again, I don't know how many hours, but still. Sorry, but your argument (spacious to say the least) is way too flimsy. Just give it up.
Well the only reason I didn't count it because it was done 60 years ago under a totally different administration. But yes, that too was despisable.

Again, highway of death is a great argument. It lasted around two days though.

You tell me. Practically speaking, it is the sustainable rate that counts. The WTC was a one off. 3,000 was about the max achievable. With some better timing, that could go up a fair bit, but still. The Highway of Death was not a one off, that sort of operation can be executed again and again. However, this is not infinitely sustainable either. The reason there are so (comparitively) few casualties in Iraq this time around is because the army and many young men who would just about now be old enough to join the army were wiped out. Saddam was able to maintain a 10,000 a year rate, because that was presumably sustainable (again, these are generous figures, they do not take into account the fact that many of the mass-graves were thought to be from the Iran-Iraq war) The US managing to up this by a factor of 10 (and destroying the infrastructure) meant that the ability for the population to recooperate was substantially diminished. So, from that point of view, the US actions border on genocide.

Which do you think is more evil, mass-murder or genocide?

And before you bring up Halabja, a significant proportion of the US intelligence community think it was IRAN that gassed the Kurds. Like the incubator babies, blaming "the demon Saddam" was lies and spin.

I thought Saddam himself admitted to gassing the Kurds? All your points are completely valid, but the only reason you give for justifying Osama targetting and killing civilians is that the US have done stuff just as bad.

I agree, where is the justice against america? America shouldn't be able to commit any atrocity they want without paying the consequences.

But I believe in justice, not revenge. The people who made the orders, carried out the orders, and the administration responsible for the acts should be brought to justice. Not a blind attack for revenge against civilians who probably weren't even aware of the american injustice.

So yes, it can be explained rationally what Osama did and why he did it. It still doesn't make it right or justified.


And just on the side, would Bush be less evil if he ruled America the same way Saddam ruled Iraq?

I don't know, to me, just because Bush is wrong doesn't make Saddam a good guy, and just because Saddam is wrong doesn't make Bush justified in his actions.

Again, no. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai aside, the Highway of Death is 20,000 dead in pretty much the same timeframe. That's over 6x as bad.
We didn't take into account the Highway of Death there. But still, 48 hours is a bit more than a few hours. But yes, the highway of death was just as bad, if not more

No, you used two different standards for two different scales of conflict. You compared an action (WTC) with a war (Desert Storm).
I could have swore you've been doing the same.


Although in the end I think we're debating different things. I'm arguing that however rational and however much America brought it on to herself, it still isn't justified and wasn't the right thing to do.

I think you're arguing that it can be explained rationally, which I have no argument with.