"They control culture. They control ideas. And I think the revolt of Sept. 11th was about 'F--- you! F--- your order'."
October 15, 2001 11:38 PM Subscribe
"They control culture. They control ideas. And I think the revolt of Sept. 11th was about 'F--- you! F--- your order'." Maybe Oliver Stone is an idiot. Don't kill the messenger here, but I think he's on to something... [more inside]
I think Oliver Stone should stick to making pretty entertaining movies about football and assasinations.
posted by owillis at 11:42 PM on October 15, 2001
posted by owillis at 11:42 PM on October 15, 2001
also: between him and North, he's screwed my name over.
posted by owillis at 11:43 PM on October 15, 2001
posted by owillis at 11:43 PM on October 15, 2001
Okayfine. Go ahead and kill the messenger. *rolls eyes*
posted by ZachsMind at 11:44 PM on October 15, 2001
posted by ZachsMind at 11:44 PM on October 15, 2001
To be honest, my first reaction to watching the attack live on television was exultation. I thought it was a well deserved smack in the face of the new world order that continues to oppress the majority of humanity and ravage the planet. Flame on.
posted by worldsystema at 12:00 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by worldsystema at 12:00 AM on October 16, 2001
To be honest, my first reaction to watching the attack live on television was exultation. I thought it was a well deserved smack in the face of the new world order that continues to oppress the majority of humanity and ravage the planet. Flame on.
posted by worldsystema at 12:01 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by worldsystema at 12:01 AM on October 16, 2001
Ok. I`ll slap the messenger and say I don`t like him.
But he may be on to something. I stress may. When I think of America, I do not think of the WTC. Maybe the Pentagon. I definitely think of Disneyland and the Capitol and the White House and the Hollywood and the Statue of Liberty. None of these things were hit.
But, what do people from other countries think of, landmark/symbolwise, when they think of the U.S.?
And note that the WTC has been a target before. Targeted by the same people we think did this one.
And what does the Pentagon have to do with globalization?
Why weren`t specific corporations hit (Monsanto, Coke, Nike, MS, McD, etc.) Globalization is driven by corporations, not governments.
And note that at least one attack failed, so there may be have been other targets that we don`t know about, perhaps targets that we`re more likely to think of as American symbols.
owillis, the name Oliver is not completely without honor and grace.
posted by chiheisen at 12:08 AM on October 16, 2001
But he may be on to something. I stress may. When I think of America, I do not think of the WTC. Maybe the Pentagon. I definitely think of Disneyland and the Capitol and the White House and the Hollywood and the Statue of Liberty. None of these things were hit.
But, what do people from other countries think of, landmark/symbolwise, when they think of the U.S.?
And note that the WTC has been a target before. Targeted by the same people we think did this one.
And what does the Pentagon have to do with globalization?
Why weren`t specific corporations hit (Monsanto, Coke, Nike, MS, McD, etc.) Globalization is driven by corporations, not governments.
And note that at least one attack failed, so there may be have been other targets that we don`t know about, perhaps targets that we`re more likely to think of as American symbols.
owillis, the name Oliver is not completely without honor and grace.
posted by chiheisen at 12:08 AM on October 16, 2001
political ideologies are not driven by government, they drive government.
the US is a capitalist democracy.
posted by elle at 12:15 AM on October 16, 2001
the US is a capitalist democracy.
posted by elle at 12:15 AM on October 16, 2001
They wanted to disrupt our financial system, and kill as many people as possible. The only other building that would have served that purpose would be the NYSE, which they basically shut down anyway and killed more people.
Why all this attempt to explain away psycho killers? There are real people in the Middle East and the rest of the world with legit grudges against America and our policies.
The people who destroyed the WTC are not the same people.
chilheisen: I forgot about the other geeky black guy named Oliver, my comic book doppleganger!
posted by owillis at 12:16 AM on October 16, 2001
Why all this attempt to explain away psycho killers? There are real people in the Middle East and the rest of the world with legit grudges against America and our policies.
The people who destroyed the WTC are not the same people.
chilheisen: I forgot about the other geeky black guy named Oliver, my comic book doppleganger!
posted by owillis at 12:16 AM on October 16, 2001
What does it say about you that 6000 innocents have to die for you to be exultant? And they were innocents, they were not the new world order. They were people who woke up in the morning, had their breakfast and went to work like any other day, JUST LIKE YOU, except they never came back.
You think this is a credible way of fighting a new world order? OK, if the NWO is oppressing the rest of the planet, I would love to hear about what you're doing to fight it, aside from posting comments on some obscure corner of the web. I can tell you what, slaughtering innocent people is unlikely to get anybody in your corner.
Whatever you're against, there is a better way of fighting it. You talk about oppressing humanity, what happened on September 11 was one of the most inhumane things I have ever seen. Wouldn't you say that your justification of this makes you somewhat a hypocrite?
posted by Jubey at 12:18 AM on October 16, 2001
You think this is a credible way of fighting a new world order? OK, if the NWO is oppressing the rest of the planet, I would love to hear about what you're doing to fight it, aside from posting comments on some obscure corner of the web. I can tell you what, slaughtering innocent people is unlikely to get anybody in your corner.
Whatever you're against, there is a better way of fighting it. You talk about oppressing humanity, what happened on September 11 was one of the most inhumane things I have ever seen. Wouldn't you say that your justification of this makes you somewhat a hypocrite?
posted by Jubey at 12:18 AM on October 16, 2001
The protests in Seattle a year or so ago were a harbinger. I saw that back then. Those in power aren't gonna go, "gee lookit all these people protesting. Maybe they have a point. Maybe we shouldn't create a New World Order." They're gonna continue doing what they wanna do and it doesn't really matter who we vote in and out of office in America. This is World Trade we're talking about. The whole planet doesn't agree with us on democratic theologies. They think we're stupid. Letting people who don't own commercial conglomerates have a say in politics? Whose money's being spent?
This is in the end, the argument between liberal and conservative thinking. Liberals think the money should help everybody, especially those who don't have any. Conservatives think the money should help only the people contributing to society, and the deadwood should either pull themselves up by their bootstraps or quit their whining and die already. Whose voice is winning in the World Trade game? Those who actually own and operate international organizations know that percentage-wise, their money makes more noise than what comes out of your paycheck. However, in a true democracy, and in a perfect world, we all would get equal say. That ain't what's going on with the WTO.
Religious zealots on all sides of the argument believe in a Higher Power. Money does not make the world go around: God does. But which God? Will the Muslim concept of God survive a New World Order? Or will entire cultures (not just the Muslim people's but a lot of others) be wiped out of the picture in the wake of a New World Order? How many cultures has Christianity already irrevocably tainted or destroyed, in favor of a new "matrix"? Will a McDonalds some day find a place in Kabal? Will those who agree with people like Bin Laden be able to tolerate that?
posted by ZachsMind at 12:30 AM on October 16, 2001
This is in the end, the argument between liberal and conservative thinking. Liberals think the money should help everybody, especially those who don't have any. Conservatives think the money should help only the people contributing to society, and the deadwood should either pull themselves up by their bootstraps or quit their whining and die already. Whose voice is winning in the World Trade game? Those who actually own and operate international organizations know that percentage-wise, their money makes more noise than what comes out of your paycheck. However, in a true democracy, and in a perfect world, we all would get equal say. That ain't what's going on with the WTO.
Religious zealots on all sides of the argument believe in a Higher Power. Money does not make the world go around: God does. But which God? Will the Muslim concept of God survive a New World Order? Or will entire cultures (not just the Muslim people's but a lot of others) be wiped out of the picture in the wake of a New World Order? How many cultures has Christianity already irrevocably tainted or destroyed, in favor of a new "matrix"? Will a McDonalds some day find a place in Kabal? Will those who agree with people like Bin Laden be able to tolerate that?
posted by ZachsMind at 12:30 AM on October 16, 2001
some obscure corner of the web.
ahem. Ever heard of a pivot?
posted by crasspastor at 12:32 AM on October 16, 2001
ahem. Ever heard of a pivot?
posted by crasspastor at 12:32 AM on October 16, 2001
Witheringly prescient Zach.
posted by crasspastor at 12:36 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by crasspastor at 12:36 AM on October 16, 2001
Out of all the things here to comment on, THAT'S what you choose? Yeah. Whatever.
posted by Jubey at 12:37 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by Jubey at 12:37 AM on October 16, 2001
Zach:
The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. Whatever point the other 10% had was drowned out by the majority dumb-dumbs.
I can't speak for the world, but if you look at political trends for the past 15 or so years and you'll realize that most of America is neither extremely liberal or conservative. The bulk of the electorate is "the vast middle". This section believes in not rocking the boat. They're able to realize that millions of Americans are employed by these so-called "evil corporations". They've also realized that the corporations can't totaly be given carte blanche to do what they want (see tobacco, environmental legislation). They want government involvement in their lives (welfare system), just not too much (welfare reform).
People realize that if the people of Kabul want a McDonald's - why wouldn't McDonald's put a store in Kabul? McDonald's puts stores in place for one reason - selling hamburgers. There's no ideology, no new world order yada-yada there - they just want to sell hamburgers.
Corporations can't vote (yet). Your government reps choose the rules of the WTO, etc. If enough people were against it, we would have anti-WTO political reps - wouldn't we? And there are some, but they're a minority - sounds like democracy to me.
posted by owillis at 12:58 AM on October 16, 2001
The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. Whatever point the other 10% had was drowned out by the majority dumb-dumbs.
I can't speak for the world, but if you look at political trends for the past 15 or so years and you'll realize that most of America is neither extremely liberal or conservative. The bulk of the electorate is "the vast middle". This section believes in not rocking the boat. They're able to realize that millions of Americans are employed by these so-called "evil corporations". They've also realized that the corporations can't totaly be given carte blanche to do what they want (see tobacco, environmental legislation). They want government involvement in their lives (welfare system), just not too much (welfare reform).
People realize that if the people of Kabul want a McDonald's - why wouldn't McDonald's put a store in Kabul? McDonald's puts stores in place for one reason - selling hamburgers. There's no ideology, no new world order yada-yada there - they just want to sell hamburgers.
Corporations can't vote (yet). Your government reps choose the rules of the WTO, etc. If enough people were against it, we would have anti-WTO political reps - wouldn't we? And there are some, but they're a minority - sounds like democracy to me.
posted by owillis at 12:58 AM on October 16, 2001
elle: "the US is a capitalist democracy."
America is not a true Democracy. We are a Republic, bordering on a corporate Oligarchy. We have people who represent us that take care of the majority of national issues. Those people also represent people who have a lot more money and power than you and me. Who are they really listening to? We vote on issues only when the representatives of our government deem it necessary. Otherwise we only vote on who goes to represent us. A true democracy is done on popular vote only, which would be a mathematical nightmare in this country, and would make it impossible for corporate interests to pay off everybody's vote.
owillis: "Why all this attempt to explain away psycho killers?"
I fully agree this comaratively small faction of zealots in the Middle East are sociopaths and should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent. I am not condoning their actions, but I am trying to explain why this is happening. We should retaliate, in fact we have no choice. However, this does not make us paladins. It's high time we take off the white hats and admit who we are. In fact since we're IN this mess, we should go full tilt. We should start adding stars to our flag. Turn Afghanistan into the 51st state of the Union, and do the same to anyone who defies us. But that's not gonna happen, cuz this isn't a battle between America and Afghanistan. It's a battle between the New World Order and the Old Ways. Whose theology is gonna survive? Whose ideologies? Will this planet become a republic or an oligarchy?
Jubey: "You think this is a credible way of fighting a new world order?"
No. No. A Thousand Times No. Violence is never a credible way of responding to anything. My point is these committed zealots are not attacking Americans as individuals. They have made the mistake we are trying to avoid: they have personified all of World Trade as synonymous with each and every American. We are trying to separate Afghanistan's population as a whole with the vocal and violent minority among them (and elsewhere in the world) who believe the New World Order is out to destroy the Old Ways. And I for one am for destroying the Old Ways. Five thousand years is a long time for both Palestinians and Israelis to hold a damn grudge. If we're gonna DO this, we can't pussyfoot about it. We didn't start this fight, but we damn well be prepared to finish it once and for all.
"I would love to hear about what you're doing to fight it.."
Not wasting my energy on peaceful protests or violent demonstrations of terrorism. I'm not fighting it. The first rule of Not Being Seen is not to stand up.
crasspastor: "Witheringly prescient Zach."
Yeah I love you too.
owillis: "The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. Whatever point the other 10% had was drowned out by the majority dumb-dumbs."
Precisely. Which is why I ain't fighting it. To paraphrase Ecclesiastes - "it is useless. It is like chasing the wind." I guess this makes me a moderate. Like the majority of America, I ain't interested in rocking the boat. Let the powerhungry greedy world leaders steer the engine. I don't care. Just so long as they don't get in my way I won't get in theirs. However, unlike most Americans I am not under the illusion that we control them. We don't. They do have carte blanche. They own everything.
And I'm no conspiracy theorist. There's not one person out there controlling everything. The elusive "they" get up and have breakfast just like everybody else, and they talk in their cellphones and make decisions because somebody has to do it, but they just are doing their jobs. It's more like thousands of people each making separate decisions that collectively change the way the world works. Each one has their own personal agenda, and many of them happen to communicate with each other and make compromises or whatever during their 'power lunches' and still make it home in time for supper.
I'm not worried about it personally, but there are people out there who are worried about it cuz it's affecting them in ways they don't like.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:15 AM on October 16, 2001
America is not a true Democracy. We are a Republic, bordering on a corporate Oligarchy. We have people who represent us that take care of the majority of national issues. Those people also represent people who have a lot more money and power than you and me. Who are they really listening to? We vote on issues only when the representatives of our government deem it necessary. Otherwise we only vote on who goes to represent us. A true democracy is done on popular vote only, which would be a mathematical nightmare in this country, and would make it impossible for corporate interests to pay off everybody's vote.
owillis: "Why all this attempt to explain away psycho killers?"
I fully agree this comaratively small faction of zealots in the Middle East are sociopaths and should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent. I am not condoning their actions, but I am trying to explain why this is happening. We should retaliate, in fact we have no choice. However, this does not make us paladins. It's high time we take off the white hats and admit who we are. In fact since we're IN this mess, we should go full tilt. We should start adding stars to our flag. Turn Afghanistan into the 51st state of the Union, and do the same to anyone who defies us. But that's not gonna happen, cuz this isn't a battle between America and Afghanistan. It's a battle between the New World Order and the Old Ways. Whose theology is gonna survive? Whose ideologies? Will this planet become a republic or an oligarchy?
Jubey: "You think this is a credible way of fighting a new world order?"
No. No. A Thousand Times No. Violence is never a credible way of responding to anything. My point is these committed zealots are not attacking Americans as individuals. They have made the mistake we are trying to avoid: they have personified all of World Trade as synonymous with each and every American. We are trying to separate Afghanistan's population as a whole with the vocal and violent minority among them (and elsewhere in the world) who believe the New World Order is out to destroy the Old Ways. And I for one am for destroying the Old Ways. Five thousand years is a long time for both Palestinians and Israelis to hold a damn grudge. If we're gonna DO this, we can't pussyfoot about it. We didn't start this fight, but we damn well be prepared to finish it once and for all.
"I would love to hear about what you're doing to fight it.."
Not wasting my energy on peaceful protests or violent demonstrations of terrorism. I'm not fighting it. The first rule of Not Being Seen is not to stand up.
crasspastor: "Witheringly prescient Zach."
Yeah I love you too.
owillis: "The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. Whatever point the other 10% had was drowned out by the majority dumb-dumbs."
Precisely. Which is why I ain't fighting it. To paraphrase Ecclesiastes - "it is useless. It is like chasing the wind." I guess this makes me a moderate. Like the majority of America, I ain't interested in rocking the boat. Let the powerhungry greedy world leaders steer the engine. I don't care. Just so long as they don't get in my way I won't get in theirs. However, unlike most Americans I am not under the illusion that we control them. We don't. They do have carte blanche. They own everything.
And I'm no conspiracy theorist. There's not one person out there controlling everything. The elusive "they" get up and have breakfast just like everybody else, and they talk in their cellphones and make decisions because somebody has to do it, but they just are doing their jobs. It's more like thousands of people each making separate decisions that collectively change the way the world works. Each one has their own personal agenda, and many of them happen to communicate with each other and make compromises or whatever during their 'power lunches' and still make it home in time for supper.
I'm not worried about it personally, but there are people out there who are worried about it cuz it's affecting them in ways they don't like.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:15 AM on October 16, 2001
Chiheisen and Owilis:
Please understand that the Government and the Corporations are the same thing. Its the Shitstem.
Jubey:
There is a thread in anarchy of propoganda by the deed and although its said that you can't blow up a social relationship such acts do sometimes have an effect even if its only to wake a few people up from the narcoleptic grip of the matrix.
When I first saw the attack I felt as if I was watching science fiction. My reaction later was one of great sorrow which I continue to feel as innocent people are bombed and starved to death in Afghanistan.
The only things I can do to fight the new world order are to talk to those near me and try to consume less than the average citizen of the United States.
posted by worldsystema at 1:27 AM on October 16, 2001
Please understand that the Government and the Corporations are the same thing. Its the Shitstem.
Jubey:
There is a thread in anarchy of propoganda by the deed and although its said that you can't blow up a social relationship such acts do sometimes have an effect even if its only to wake a few people up from the narcoleptic grip of the matrix.
When I first saw the attack I felt as if I was watching science fiction. My reaction later was one of great sorrow which I continue to feel as innocent people are bombed and starved to death in Afghanistan.
The only things I can do to fight the new world order are to talk to those near me and try to consume less than the average citizen of the United States.
posted by worldsystema at 1:27 AM on October 16, 2001
To the initial question: I don't think there is a clear distinction between "us" and the "new world order". Where's the line?
To "Violence is never a credible way of responding to anything": Terrorism works. It's worked in S Africa. It'd worked in N Ireland. The WTC attacaks seem to be provoking changes on the Israel problem....
To "there's no ideology" in McDonalds: That's because you can't see the water you're swimming in.
posted by andrew cooke at 1:39 AM on October 16, 2001
To "Violence is never a credible way of responding to anything": Terrorism works. It's worked in S Africa. It'd worked in N Ireland. The WTC attacaks seem to be provoking changes on the Israel problem....
To "there's no ideology" in McDonalds: That's because you can't see the water you're swimming in.
posted by andrew cooke at 1:39 AM on October 16, 2001
Ok. I started with a long screed. I deleted it. You don`t need to hear my thoughts on the powers of a corp in a true democracy.
But I also reread Zachsmind`s last post.
Zachsmind: You`ve made me think. Which is tough to do at the end of a work day. But I can`t tell if it`s the kind of thinking you do when trying to read something from clavsdivs or if it`s the sort of thinking that goes on right before something goes "click."
Is the following a correct assessment of what you are saying?
There are prominent world views. One is held by old folks (Old World Order) and one by young people (NWO). They think of the other as fogies or whippersnappers. The old folks say to the young folks "get off my lawn. you`re trampling the grass." Then crash an airplane into the young people`s house?
Is it just a conflict of paradigms?
On the other hand, the people protesting in Seattle (the old world order people, young as they may be) were not the ones who crashed the planes. The planes crashers were completely unrelated.
In fact the anti globalization bit seems totally different than the al-quada line. Anti globalization seems to be about letting everyone do their own thing without intervention by people with money. Al-qaida seems to be about letting everyone do their own thing, as long as it`s the fundie Islam thing.
[owillis: It is best never to forget Bloom County and Outland, and most certainly not their denizens.]
Worldsystema: Please understand that the Government and the Corporations are the same thing. Its the Shitstem
This sounds like standard conspiracy theory stuff. "The gay agenda" "The Jewish organization." It looks like that. But if there`s a Jewish agenda, why do they never call me and ask my opinion?
"Corporation = Government" reeks of the same reductionism. And it`s nearest possibility in the first world, like the U.S. or Japan. But what about in Afghanistan? Would you buy that Government = oppressive gang of goons? Is that better?
I`m not going to demand that you suggest improvements to the "shitstem", but I am going to suggest that perhaps you provide a reason why you think this is the case.
posted by chiheisen at 1:55 AM on October 16, 2001
But I also reread Zachsmind`s last post.
Zachsmind: You`ve made me think. Which is tough to do at the end of a work day. But I can`t tell if it`s the kind of thinking you do when trying to read something from clavsdivs or if it`s the sort of thinking that goes on right before something goes "click."
Is the following a correct assessment of what you are saying?
There are prominent world views. One is held by old folks (Old World Order) and one by young people (NWO). They think of the other as fogies or whippersnappers. The old folks say to the young folks "get off my lawn. you`re trampling the grass." Then crash an airplane into the young people`s house?
Is it just a conflict of paradigms?
On the other hand, the people protesting in Seattle (the old world order people, young as they may be) were not the ones who crashed the planes. The planes crashers were completely unrelated.
In fact the anti globalization bit seems totally different than the al-quada line. Anti globalization seems to be about letting everyone do their own thing without intervention by people with money. Al-qaida seems to be about letting everyone do their own thing, as long as it`s the fundie Islam thing.
[owillis: It is best never to forget Bloom County and Outland, and most certainly not their denizens.]
Worldsystema: Please understand that the Government and the Corporations are the same thing. Its the Shitstem
This sounds like standard conspiracy theory stuff. "The gay agenda" "The Jewish organization." It looks like that. But if there`s a Jewish agenda, why do they never call me and ask my opinion?
"Corporation = Government" reeks of the same reductionism. And it`s nearest possibility in the first world, like the U.S. or Japan. But what about in Afghanistan? Would you buy that Government = oppressive gang of goons? Is that better?
I`m not going to demand that you suggest improvements to the "shitstem", but I am going to suggest that perhaps you provide a reason why you think this is the case.
posted by chiheisen at 1:55 AM on October 16, 2001
Oliver Stone notwithstanding, I must beg to differ: Bin Laden has no grudge against capitalism in general. The destruction of the WTC aimed at inflicting maximum damage to the US. OBL's stated goals are the destruction of Israel and the removal of US forces from Saudi Arabia. He is no Robin Hood this guy. Nowhere does he even mention anything against capitalism (not surprising- considering his background). Let's not mistake a murderous organization of religious fanatics for the Left here. Notice also the backgrounds of the attackers: Upper middle class people, hardly the desperate of the world.
As for the anti-capitalist demonstrations: from what I saw in Genoa it was 95% peaceful demonstrators, 3% raging "anarchists", and 2% secret police masquerading as raging anarchists. Also, 100% brutal police action, from a police force that really misses the good ol' days of Mussolini (and hopes Berlusconi can live up to their idol).
posted by talos at 2:27 AM on October 16, 2001
As for the anti-capitalist demonstrations: from what I saw in Genoa it was 95% peaceful demonstrators, 3% raging "anarchists", and 2% secret police masquerading as raging anarchists. Also, 100% brutal police action, from a police force that really misses the good ol' days of Mussolini (and hopes Berlusconi can live up to their idol).
posted by talos at 2:27 AM on October 16, 2001
Hey, guys..
Stone's New World Order isn't World Trade and big corporations; it's Hollywood. Did you read the article? MEDIA corporations. That idea is getting close to the concept of a Jewish conspiracy which Bin Laden is probably pleased to exploit but that's a far different topic than whether Bin Laden thinks the Seattle protesters are his buds.
This thread didn't wander off topic, it took a mighty jump to the left.
posted by dness2 at 2:40 AM on October 16, 2001
Stone's New World Order isn't World Trade and big corporations; it's Hollywood. Did you read the article? MEDIA corporations. That idea is getting close to the concept of a Jewish conspiracy which Bin Laden is probably pleased to exploit but that's a far different topic than whether Bin Laden thinks the Seattle protesters are his buds.
This thread didn't wander off topic, it took a mighty jump to the left.
posted by dness2 at 2:40 AM on October 16, 2001
Chiheisen:
The elites that comprise the governments and the higher echelons of corporations are the same groups of people. This is not conspiracy theory, it is a verifiable fact. Money and power are concentrated in very few hands. The system they control and maintain for their own benefit is "the water that we swim in".
posted by worldsystema at 2:45 AM on October 16, 2001
The elites that comprise the governments and the higher echelons of corporations are the same groups of people. This is not conspiracy theory, it is a verifiable fact. Money and power are concentrated in very few hands. The system they control and maintain for their own benefit is "the water that we swim in".
posted by worldsystema at 2:45 AM on October 16, 2001
Of course terrorism works.
The US has been forced to exert more pressure on Israel than ever before to go to the table with Palestine and talk.
The US has been forced to concede to Pakistan, who before the conflict were sanctioned due to their nuclear testing.
There is even talk now of a modification of sanctions on Iraq, not to mention the amount of discussion going on between the west and the Middle East.
Plus, Bin Laden has his holy war.
I would say that the WTC attack achieved far more than the perpitrators dared hope.
posted by Markb at 2:56 AM on October 16, 2001
The US has been forced to exert more pressure on Israel than ever before to go to the table with Palestine and talk.
The US has been forced to concede to Pakistan, who before the conflict were sanctioned due to their nuclear testing.
There is even talk now of a modification of sanctions on Iraq, not to mention the amount of discussion going on between the west and the Middle East.
Plus, Bin Laden has his holy war.
I would say that the WTC attack achieved far more than the perpitrators dared hope.
posted by Markb at 2:56 AM on October 16, 2001
[How many cultures has Christianity already irrevocably tainted or destroyed, in favor of a new "matrix"? ]
What does it matter? No culture is static. Trying to fight the inevitability of change and economic progress is futile.
posted by revbrian at 3:26 AM on October 16, 2001
What does it matter? No culture is static. Trying to fight the inevitability of change and economic progress is futile.
posted by revbrian at 3:26 AM on October 16, 2001
zachsmind, i'll agree that the US is not a true democracy, just like china and the USSR were/ are never true communist states. in the modern world, complex political ideologies never function perfectly in application. you and everyone else already know this, so whatever.
that aside, the point to my statement is that they're challenging the US's capitalist ideologies in response to chiheisen, who had just said, "
Globalization is driven by corporations, not governments." i offered in response that capitalism is part of the ideologies that drives the US government.
-the end-
posted by elle at 4:11 AM on October 16, 2001
that aside, the point to my statement is that they're challenging the US's capitalist ideologies in response to chiheisen, who had just said, "
Globalization is driven by corporations, not governments." i offered in response that capitalism is part of the ideologies that drives the US government.
-the end-
posted by elle at 4:11 AM on October 16, 2001
zach: Will a McDonalds some day find a place in Kabal?
There is no cabal.
sorry. i couldn't resist. there is however, a Kabul.
posted by nedrichards at 5:15 AM on October 16, 2001
There is no cabal.
sorry. i couldn't resist. there is however, a Kabul.
posted by nedrichards at 5:15 AM on October 16, 2001
"Look for the thirteenth month!"
Yes Oliver, whatever you say.
Why don't you have a nice lie down.
(Say in soothing voice)
posted by spinifex at 5:36 AM on October 16, 2001
Yes Oliver, whatever you say.
Why don't you have a nice lie down.
(Say in soothing voice)
posted by spinifex at 5:36 AM on October 16, 2001
No culture is static. Trying to fight the inevitability of change and economic progress is futile.
Yes and no. Change is inevitable, but it is not unidirectional. There IS one way to reverse the flow and inertia of progress: introduce widespread and massive destruction and chaos into the system. Eventually, critical mass will be reached and it will be destabilized.
Which kinda sounds like Afghanistan.
posted by rushmc at 6:10 AM on October 16, 2001
Yes and no. Change is inevitable, but it is not unidirectional. There IS one way to reverse the flow and inertia of progress: introduce widespread and massive destruction and chaos into the system. Eventually, critical mass will be reached and it will be destabilized.
Which kinda sounds like Afghanistan.
posted by rushmc at 6:10 AM on October 16, 2001
Dness2: "Stone's New World Order isn't World Trade and big corporations; it's Hollywood. Did you read the article? MEDIA corporations."
In this area, Stone and I agree: It's all a part of the same beast. No. There is no one person controlling everything. There's a bunch of people out there with their hands at the reach of various strings. Some of them talk to each other. Some don't. Most have similar agendas in mind. I'm not seeing this as good and evil, but I do see that "Hollywood" is one of many big top-heavy industries run by people with often selfish goals.
You and I know that MEDIA corporations and the World Trade Organization aren't exactly the same thing. However, they got their tendrils into each other. Weirdos like Bin Laden see no distinction. And when the U.S. government formally asks the American media to curtail the use of Taliban footage for fear of coded messages, it doesn't help with the appearance of a separate media from government.
nedrichards: "There is no cabal. sorry. i couldn't resist. there is however, a Kabul."
Freudian Slip. Sorry about that. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 6:32 AM on October 16, 2001
In this area, Stone and I agree: It's all a part of the same beast. No. There is no one person controlling everything. There's a bunch of people out there with their hands at the reach of various strings. Some of them talk to each other. Some don't. Most have similar agendas in mind. I'm not seeing this as good and evil, but I do see that "Hollywood" is one of many big top-heavy industries run by people with often selfish goals.
You and I know that MEDIA corporations and the World Trade Organization aren't exactly the same thing. However, they got their tendrils into each other. Weirdos like Bin Laden see no distinction. And when the U.S. government formally asks the American media to curtail the use of Taliban footage for fear of coded messages, it doesn't help with the appearance of a separate media from government.
nedrichards: "There is no cabal. sorry. i couldn't resist. there is however, a Kabul."
Freudian Slip. Sorry about that. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 6:32 AM on October 16, 2001
hollywood doesn't control my culture or my ideas. and i live in it's shadow. i highly doubt---make that "am certain"--it doesn't control bin laden's culture and ideas.
disgraceful publicity stunt by stone.
the off topic WTO vis a vis WTC discussion is indeed the more interesting one.
posted by danOstuporStar at 6:53 AM on October 16, 2001
disgraceful publicity stunt by stone.
the off topic WTO vis a vis WTC discussion is indeed the more interesting one.
posted by danOstuporStar at 6:53 AM on October 16, 2001
Sorry for the aside, but I just have to take a moment here to say that as someone who spent five days living in the middle of the WTO protests in Seattle, 90% of the people involved were not "bored slackers" as oswillis and ZachsMind seem to think. Let's talk about the thousands of labor unionists there. You want to tell a 300 pound steel worker that he's a slacker? Unfortunately, all the news showed was slackers and people breaking windows. It's much more interesting than those boring fully-employed people peacably marching down the street.
posted by arielmeadow at 7:02 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by arielmeadow at 7:02 AM on October 16, 2001
Whatever they were, the terrorist attacks were not a "revolt": They were an act of mass murder on innocent people. If we wish to prevent such an atrocity from happening again, it is vitally important that we understand why it happened. If "the messenger" is a prolific bulldada machine like Oliver Stone, then IMHO he should do us all a favor and shut up. Sorry for the thread un-hijacking; you may now return to your well-rehearsed pro- and anti-globalization theatrics.
posted by whuppy at 7:22 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by whuppy at 7:22 AM on October 16, 2001
I thought it was a well deserved smack in the face of the new world order that continues to oppress the majority of humanity and ravage the planet. Flame on.
You know what else was great? All those people that died. Yeah, that was awesome.
posted by dcgartn at 7:31 AM on October 16, 2001
You know what else was great? All those people that died. Yeah, that was awesome.
posted by dcgartn at 7:31 AM on October 16, 2001
Stone is insane; if you doubt it, read this book. Although I love his films, taking political advice from him is like taking investment advice from MC Hammer.
While there are many obvious, horrible things wrong with global capitalism, the domination of US government by corporations, etc., let's not lend the attacks even a shred of legitimacy. "Revolt"? "Revolution"? He is a moral idiot.
Zachsmind, the WTC was a target, presumably along with the Pentagon and the White House, for maximum symbolic value: icons of US economic, military and governmental might. These terrorists would think of themselves as 'freedom fighters' and thus wouldn't see the point in blowing up an icon of US freedom. Plus, it wouldn't kill nearly enough people, which is part of the goal – but that's obvious, isn't it?
posted by D at 7:45 AM on October 16, 2001
While there are many obvious, horrible things wrong with global capitalism, the domination of US government by corporations, etc., let's not lend the attacks even a shred of legitimacy. "Revolt"? "Revolution"? He is a moral idiot.
Zachsmind, the WTC was a target, presumably along with the Pentagon and the White House, for maximum symbolic value: icons of US economic, military and governmental might. These terrorists would think of themselves as 'freedom fighters' and thus wouldn't see the point in blowing up an icon of US freedom. Plus, it wouldn't kill nearly enough people, which is part of the goal – but that's obvious, isn't it?
posted by D at 7:45 AM on October 16, 2001
O. Stone has obviously lost his mind.
I liked Tony Blair's explanation of globalization and what the G8 are trying to do. Globalization is occurring. Whether you like it or not. I has little to do with oppressing masses, and more to do with lowering boundaries on the ways we communicate, move, transport information etc. All the powers that be are really trying to do is to bring some of the benefits of life that we (as an American) already know, to some of the less advanced areas of the world.
Now, that being said there are a lot of people that are protesting this or that, etc, etc... ad freakin nauseum. Yet none of them ever offer any solutions or ideas. What to do?
posted by jbelshaw at 8:00 AM on October 16, 2001
I liked Tony Blair's explanation of globalization and what the G8 are trying to do. Globalization is occurring. Whether you like it or not. I has little to do with oppressing masses, and more to do with lowering boundaries on the ways we communicate, move, transport information etc. All the powers that be are really trying to do is to bring some of the benefits of life that we (as an American) already know, to some of the less advanced areas of the world.
Now, that being said there are a lot of people that are protesting this or that, etc, etc... ad freakin nauseum. Yet none of them ever offer any solutions or ideas. What to do?
posted by jbelshaw at 8:00 AM on October 16, 2001
[globalization] has little to do with oppressing masses, and more to do with lowering boundaries on the ways we communicate, move, transport information etc.
Then why do the G8, the WTO etc. refuse to include any labour standards in trade agreements? Let alone civil rights?
Yet none of them ever offer any solutions or ideas.
In fact, they do – just don't expect to find them in the mainstream media. Which brings us to an earlier point...
posted by D at 8:21 AM on October 16, 2001
Then why do the G8, the WTO etc. refuse to include any labour standards in trade agreements? Let alone civil rights?
Yet none of them ever offer any solutions or ideas.
In fact, they do – just don't expect to find them in the mainstream media. Which brings us to an earlier point...
posted by D at 8:21 AM on October 16, 2001
D, where on that site are any ideas or alternate solutions? Its all whining about how bad everyone else is. I've been there before, indymedia has little to no credibility. They are out to spin for their own agenda, just like everyone else.
posted by jbelshaw at 8:34 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by jbelshaw at 8:34 AM on October 16, 2001
The WTC and Pentagon attacks were not carried out as a statement against the United States dominated hegemony of growth oriented industrialization.
I just read it as that when I first saw it.
To explain:
My mindset has been informed by anarchism which I am aware is not a majority point of view but which I feel still has significant things to contribute to an analysis of the state of the world.
Look at the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Think about the comparative consumption of energy of the average United States citizen and someone from the developing world.
To kill anyone is a crime and a sin.
In terms of the worlds population I consider myself very fortunate in my material existence but I know that the system we live under is damaging the vast majority of humanity and destroying the very fabric of the planet.
That system is now once again engaged in a war that will only accelerate these symptoms.
I have talked to those around me about my first reactions and have been understood. I think the lack of context may not have helped my original post and it will certainly make me more careful in the future.
posted by worldsystema at 8:49 AM on October 16, 2001
I just read it as that when I first saw it.
To explain:
My mindset has been informed by anarchism which I am aware is not a majority point of view but which I feel still has significant things to contribute to an analysis of the state of the world.
Look at the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Think about the comparative consumption of energy of the average United States citizen and someone from the developing world.
To kill anyone is a crime and a sin.
In terms of the worlds population I consider myself very fortunate in my material existence but I know that the system we live under is damaging the vast majority of humanity and destroying the very fabric of the planet.
That system is now once again engaged in a war that will only accelerate these symptoms.
I have talked to those around me about my first reactions and have been understood. I think the lack of context may not have helped my original post and it will certainly make me more careful in the future.
posted by worldsystema at 8:49 AM on October 16, 2001
Sorry to un-hijack the thread again, but for those of you actually interested in causes and meaning of the terrorist attack of September 11th, I offer two editorials providing some useful background on Saudi Arabia. (Registration required.)
posted by whuppy at 8:49 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by whuppy at 8:49 AM on October 16, 2001
arielmeadow, I don't recall questioning the attitude or level of violence among the Seattle protests in my previous statements. If I did so, I apologize. My intent was to focus on the results, which were nonexistent. My point was those in the Seattle protests coulda hijacked planes and it would have made no difference. The people behind the WTO are not gonna pause and reflect in response to protests, peaceful or otherwise. They simply can't and won't be stopped.
D: "He is a moral idiot."
I am not arguing this. Any psychoanalyst will tell you one cannot understand an individual's psychosis without understanding where it comes from. I don't think we should calmly take Mr. Bin Laden aside and put him on a couch. His psychosis has caused mass murder. The guy's going down. However if we don't understand where his hatred stems from, we are handicapped at stopping him.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:19 AM on October 16, 2001
D: "He is a moral idiot."
I am not arguing this. Any psychoanalyst will tell you one cannot understand an individual's psychosis without understanding where it comes from. I don't think we should calmly take Mr. Bin Laden aside and put him on a couch. His psychosis has caused mass murder. The guy's going down. However if we don't understand where his hatred stems from, we are handicapped at stopping him.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:19 AM on October 16, 2001
However if we don't understand where [bin Laden's] hatred stems from, we are handicapped at stopping him.
So let's post inflammatory nonsense from a conspiracy theorist who makes movies! Yeah, that's the ticket!
posted by whuppy at 9:51 AM on October 16, 2001
So let's post inflammatory nonsense from a conspiracy theorist who makes movies! Yeah, that's the ticket!
posted by whuppy at 9:51 AM on October 16, 2001
Oliver Stone's entire career consists of inflammatory nonsense channeled through passable editing skills. He's a cretin, a creep, a moral waste dump. (I still remember when he told an interviewer that he doesn't consider historical fact in his movies because that would be "censorship"). Seeing nominally intelligent people praise Natural Born Killers, as if the most rudimentary me-too ironies were the same as moral complexity, was a revolting experience. Oliver Stone personifies the sort of self-loving, anal-expulsive, paranoid pathology that has hijacked liberal thinking in this country and, near as I can tell, is staining Metafilter to the point where I can barely read it any more.
posted by argybarg at 10:33 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by argybarg at 10:33 AM on October 16, 2001
Owillis:
McDonald's puts stores in place for one reason - selling hamburgers. There's no ideology, no new world order yada-yada there - they just want to sell hamburgers.
As told in the bestseller Rich Dad, Poor Dad, the author tells an anecdote about hanging out with Ray Kroc. People fawned over his business savvy, and he said, "you people don't even know what business I'm in."
Huh? How could anyone not know that Ray Kroc, father of McDonald's, was in the hamburger business?
"That's where you're wrong," he said*. "I'm in the real estate business."
I saw the evil genius in Starbucks when I read that passage.
* I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the book in front of me. But it's in there, trust me. :-)
posted by ethmar at 11:07 AM on October 16, 2001
McDonald's puts stores in place for one reason - selling hamburgers. There's no ideology, no new world order yada-yada there - they just want to sell hamburgers.
As told in the bestseller Rich Dad, Poor Dad, the author tells an anecdote about hanging out with Ray Kroc. People fawned over his business savvy, and he said, "you people don't even know what business I'm in."
Huh? How could anyone not know that Ray Kroc, father of McDonald's, was in the hamburger business?
"That's where you're wrong," he said*. "I'm in the real estate business."
I saw the evil genius in Starbucks when I read that passage.
* I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the book in front of me. But it's in there, trust me. :-)
posted by ethmar at 11:07 AM on October 16, 2001
Don't forget Oliver Cromwell.
I don't know, maybe Stone ment it as some kind of metaphore, but I seriously fucking dobt that Osama had movies on the mind when he blew up the WTC (Why not hollywood then?). What an idiotic notion.
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on October 16, 2001
I don't know, maybe Stone ment it as some kind of metaphore, but I seriously fucking dobt that Osama had movies on the mind when he blew up the WTC (Why not hollywood then?). What an idiotic notion.
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on October 16, 2001
"Well, maybe the terrorists aren't attacking America, but the New World Order."
Oh yes, that's brilliant. Just because the terrorists, on video, in their own words, over and over, with clear passion, are telling us exactly why they're attacking, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ignore them and come up with our own self severing and contorted theory.
In other words - Hello??? If they were protesting McDonald's they might use the word "McDonald's". If the WTO is the enemy, why do they keep calling it "America" and "Israel" and "US bases"?
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:48 AM on October 16, 2001
Oh yes, that's brilliant. Just because the terrorists, on video, in their own words, over and over, with clear passion, are telling us exactly why they're attacking, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ignore them and come up with our own self severing and contorted theory.
In other words - Hello??? If they were protesting McDonald's they might use the word "McDonald's". If the WTO is the enemy, why do they keep calling it "America" and "Israel" and "US bases"?
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:48 AM on October 16, 2001
The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. Whatever point the other 10% had was drowned out by the majority dumb-dumbs.
Uh, no. The people in Seattle were 90% peaceful protesters, but whatever point they had was drowned out by the 10% of bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. I realize this might not have been the impression coverage of the event may have given, but if you were here on the streets of Seattle you would have seen that the ration of honest protesters to property-damagers was, like, 50:1.
What in the Sam Hell does that "thirteenth month" thing mean?
(As an aside that really belongs in MeteTalk: ZachsMind, stop moderating your post, dude.)
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:12 PM on October 16, 2001
Uh, no. The people in Seattle were 90% peaceful protesters, but whatever point they had was drowned out by the 10% of bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. I realize this might not have been the impression coverage of the event may have given, but if you were here on the streets of Seattle you would have seen that the ration of honest protesters to property-damagers was, like, 50:1.
What in the Sam Hell does that "thirteenth month" thing mean?
(As an aside that really belongs in MeteTalk: ZachsMind, stop moderating your post, dude.)
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:12 PM on October 16, 2001
(You know, that last comment really did belong in MetaTalk, and I appologize for making it.)
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:16 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:16 PM on October 16, 2001
My intent was to focus on the results, which were nonexistent...The people behind the WTO are not gonna pause and reflect in response to protests, peaceful or otherwise. They simply can't and won't be stopped.
The fact that we are even discussing the WTO shows just how nonexistant the results of the protests were. Gone are the days when trade representatives can bargain away the rights of soveriegn nations behind closed doors. The World Bank and IMF have are also making changes in the ways they do business. Why do you think the WTO meeting was moved to Qatar? At least it was until the events of 9-11.
posted by euphorb at 1:40 PM on October 16, 2001
The fact that we are even discussing the WTO shows just how nonexistant the results of the protests were. Gone are the days when trade representatives can bargain away the rights of soveriegn nations behind closed doors. The World Bank and IMF have are also making changes in the ways they do business. Why do you think the WTO meeting was moved to Qatar? At least it was until the events of 9-11.
posted by euphorb at 1:40 PM on October 16, 2001
The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage. Whatever point the other 10% had was drowned out by the majority dumb-dumbs.
As some others have already pointed out to you, owillis, those numbers are just plain wrong. But maybe you have some source for the numbers? If so, email me the info. And even stating that 10% caused property damage is way high. Assuming 40-50K people were there, 10% would mean that 4000 to 5000 people were going around smashing windows and tagging windows. But in fact, you had 400 people at most (probably way less) who did any damage, and that's less than 1%! Stop spreading the misinfo about what happened.
someone else said:
The fact that we are even discussing the WTO shows just how nonexistant the results of the protests were. Gone are the days when trade representatives can bargain away the rights of soveriegn nations behind closed doors. The World Bank and IMF have are also making changes in the ways they do business.
Huh? What you are talking about is a direct result of the Seattle protests so how can you state that the protest results were nonexistant?
posted by gluechunk at 2:13 PM on October 16, 2001
As some others have already pointed out to you, owillis, those numbers are just plain wrong. But maybe you have some source for the numbers? If so, email me the info. And even stating that 10% caused property damage is way high. Assuming 40-50K people were there, 10% would mean that 4000 to 5000 people were going around smashing windows and tagging windows. But in fact, you had 400 people at most (probably way less) who did any damage, and that's less than 1%! Stop spreading the misinfo about what happened.
someone else said:
The fact that we are even discussing the WTO shows just how nonexistant the results of the protests were. Gone are the days when trade representatives can bargain away the rights of soveriegn nations behind closed doors. The World Bank and IMF have are also making changes in the ways they do business.
Huh? What you are talking about is a direct result of the Seattle protests so how can you state that the protest results were nonexistant?
posted by gluechunk at 2:13 PM on October 16, 2001
Look, my biggest problem with the WTO/Seattle style protestors is this - they encourage by way of not condemning the people who damage property. I have not seen or heard one person from any of the various groups say "we really shouldn't smash out people's windows". That makes them all guilty in my book. I'm totally for people's rights to protest, as long as it doesn't result in an infringement on other people's right to live their lives.
posted by owillis at 2:32 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by owillis at 2:32 PM on October 16, 2001
Owillis, I generally think of you as one of MeFi's best posters, but yer out in left field on this one. Trust me: here in Seattle the vandal/idiots were soundly criticized by just about every group involved in the days and months following the debacle. What, do you think the Union was pleased with the fact that their message was overshadowed? Do you think the hippies wanted to be associated with people who set fire to dumpsters? If you haven't heard anyone from the various groups condemn the vandalism, then you clearly haven't asked anyone from the various groups.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:53 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:53 PM on October 16, 2001
Russell Working's column Jihad Meets Anti-Globalists reveals "the upcoming calendar of events for those who are unhappy about living in places where Filet o' Fish sandwiches can be purchased and/or women can be educated."
posted by Carol Anne at 2:53 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 2:53 PM on October 16, 2001
Owillis, I generally think of you as one of MeFi's best posters, but yer out in left field on this one
(head swells a tad more from it's already over-inflated state)
It's possible, but doubtful. I've read a good bit on this, even stuff from Indymedia (who's about as fair and balanced as Fox News). I see a lot about "police brutality" (which I don't doubt too much), and "skewed media coverage" but the overwhelming message I've seen is "a few busted windows isn't as bad as sweatshops in etc., etc."
posted by owillis at 3:04 PM on October 16, 2001
(head swells a tad more from it's already over-inflated state)
It's possible, but doubtful. I've read a good bit on this, even stuff from Indymedia (who's about as fair and balanced as Fox News). I see a lot about "police brutality" (which I don't doubt too much), and "skewed media coverage" but the overwhelming message I've seen is "a few busted windows isn't as bad as sweatshops in etc., etc."
posted by owillis at 3:04 PM on October 16, 2001
Look, my biggest problem with the WTO/Seattle style protestors is this - they encourage by way of not condemning the people who damage property. I have not seen or heard one person from any of the various groups say "we really shouldn't smash out people's windows". That makes them all guilty in my book.
Well, let's see...when some protesters attempted to smash some windows, other protesters sometimes got between the window and the wannabe smasher, asking them (and sometimes forcing them) to stop their actions. Does that count? Less than 24 hours after the main damage was done, some protesters were up early in the morning wiping off the graffiti put up by others. Does that count? Do you want us to send you video of this stuff? Additionally, in the days and months that followed, a large chunk of the people did condemn (via their writings) the actions of the few.
posted by gluechunk at 7:06 PM on October 16, 2001
Well, let's see...when some protesters attempted to smash some windows, other protesters sometimes got between the window and the wannabe smasher, asking them (and sometimes forcing them) to stop their actions. Does that count? Less than 24 hours after the main damage was done, some protesters were up early in the morning wiping off the graffiti put up by others. Does that count? Do you want us to send you video of this stuff? Additionally, in the days and months that followed, a large chunk of the people did condemn (via their writings) the actions of the few.
posted by gluechunk at 7:06 PM on October 16, 2001
owillis said:
There's no ideology, no new world order yada-yada there - they just want to sell hamburgers.
jehovah's witnesses on your doorstep: there's no ideology, no religion yada yada there - they just want to save your soul.
the behavior cannot be separated from the ideology.
posted by quonsar at 7:10 PM on October 16, 2001
There's no ideology, no new world order yada-yada there - they just want to sell hamburgers.
jehovah's witnesses on your doorstep: there's no ideology, no religion yada yada there - they just want to save your soul.
the behavior cannot be separated from the ideology.
posted by quonsar at 7:10 PM on October 16, 2001
gluechunk: send me links, send me video, then I'll completely believe you
I hate to get on this tangent again, but listen up: you have free will. McDonald's could advertise their 99cent McNuggets a gillion times, but unless you choose to - you don't have to eat them. Is this true the world around? No. But it is in America, and a good portion of the free world.
Jehovah's witnesses and other evangelicals are (im-less than- ho) trying to get themselves what I call "heaven brownie points", meaning the more souls they "save" the better they can chill in the afterlife. Same as more burgers = more cash.
That is, unless you've been visited by Mayor McCheese and his Secret Fry Guy Police. Those bitches are vicious.
posted by owillis at 10:48 PM on October 16, 2001
I hate to get on this tangent again, but listen up: you have free will. McDonald's could advertise their 99cent McNuggets a gillion times, but unless you choose to - you don't have to eat them. Is this true the world around? No. But it is in America, and a good portion of the free world.
Jehovah's witnesses and other evangelicals are (im-less than- ho) trying to get themselves what I call "heaven brownie points", meaning the more souls they "save" the better they can chill in the afterlife. Same as more burgers = more cash.
That is, unless you've been visited by Mayor McCheese and his Secret Fry Guy Police. Those bitches are vicious.
posted by owillis at 10:48 PM on October 16, 2001
You're not putting yourself in Bin Laden's head. He wants this to be a battle between America and Islam, when what's really going on is his extremist views against the concept of a peaceful New World Order that will eventually dilute or delete the cultural aspects that reflect his extremist views.
He wants to simplify this. He wants the people he thinks he's defending to see this as a crusade of their god against the evil infidels of America, but by targetting government, corporate, and massmedia, he's not attacking Americans as individuals. He's attacking the NWO, thinking it's synonymous with America - which it is not.
As for my moderating my own post, I'm not doing anything different from what I've done eighty-seven times before in this place, and am increasingly disgusted that people keep coming up with new and restrictive things they dislike about how other people utilize MeFi. It's cliquism and peer pressure. Every time I come in here, y'all fabricate something new that I'm doing wrong. Who's writing these godforsaken rules, anyway?
posted by ZachsMind at 8:16 AM on October 28, 2001
He wants to simplify this. He wants the people he thinks he's defending to see this as a crusade of their god against the evil infidels of America, but by targetting government, corporate, and massmedia, he's not attacking Americans as individuals. He's attacking the NWO, thinking it's synonymous with America - which it is not.
As for my moderating my own post, I'm not doing anything different from what I've done eighty-seven times before in this place, and am increasingly disgusted that people keep coming up with new and restrictive things they dislike about how other people utilize MeFi. It's cliquism and peer pressure. Every time I come in here, y'all fabricate something new that I'm doing wrong. Who's writing these godforsaken rules, anyway?
posted by ZachsMind at 8:16 AM on October 28, 2001
« Older The Wayback Machine. | The Skyscraper Museum Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
No one's thought to connect the recent rise in terrorism with the demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in the past few years. America says they're not attacking Afghanistan. "We're attacking terrorism." Well, maybe the terrorists aren't attacking America, but the New World Order. We Americans are taking it personally, but we're shocked to learn the Afghanistans are taking it personally too? Those planes didn't hit the Statue of Liberty - they hit the World Trade Center which was right next door to Lady Liberty. They coulda made a bigger statement against America. What, did both planes MISS her?
This war has nothing to do with us. It's about World Trade. It's about whose economy and whose theology should control this planet. What do you think?
posted by ZachsMind at 11:40 PM on October 15, 2001