88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Yo Vic I usually agree with you but you're wrong here man.
Remember when Jay started calling himself CHE?
He was fighting for the people he had a social movement it was bigger than music.
Lupe Fiasco Calls Pres. Obama A Child Killer
- Thread starter Jello Biafra
- Start date
Yo Vic I usually agree with you but you're wrong here man.
Remember when Jay started calling himself CHE?
He was fighting for the people he had a social movement it was bigger than music.
You can hate on Lasers' but what was he saying there that was really out of his views?
He didn't completely sell out his lyrical content, he just used there bullshyt beats and guest spots.
And we all know Lupe did that shyt because he had to if he wanted to keep making music, still I say he kept his lyrical integrity .
feelosofer
#ninergang
so because i disagree with my people being oppressed i should leave the country... thats the dumbest shyt ive ever heardright now the battle is here, grow some balls dude
have you pursued a dialogue with lupe fiasco about potential solutions?
and i still cant believe you people are defending the US military industrial complex just because its a naga running it... it's still the same beast, just with a different head
at the end of the day everything lupe said in that opening post is 100% correct and 100% truth... and if nikkaz cant get obamas dikk out they mouth long enough to see the reality for what it is then guess what, the target is on yo head next
I have been as much of a critic as I have been a supporter of Obama. But I see all sides of the argument. Obama cannot get out of Afghanistan just because Bin Laden is dead. War CANNOT be fought without collateral damage. Obama is not aiming for women and children, this is what happens when the combatants are fighting from home, in the same proximity as their wives and children. I do not wish harm upon any one but I would still prefer this over sending over more soldiers that are going to come from our ghettoes to fight these wars. War is evil that has been established but this is the lesser of two, imo.
I don't totally disagree with what Lupe said, btw. But I hate that he would say these things as an attention grab and I don't take seriously the opinions of people who are not someway involved in the process.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
I said on the podcast last night this is something I prefer to talk about on the podcast than the board because on the board, it devolves into a bunch of bullshyt demagoguery. This is a very important, crucial topic that gets to the core of what our foreign policy and role in the world should be, but it gets lost in a chorus of platitudes, hyperbolic rhetoric, and extremist framing.
Zero, She Agree I'm Looney, Brokewave and I had a pretty good discussion about it. The sound quality is pretty fukked up. The drone discussion starts at about 34:20. PodOmatic | Best Free Podcasts
Th3G3ntleman
Superstar
Is the Jay your talking about Jay-Z? If so social movement? Is that some kind of fukking joke?
Why can't we get out of Afghanistan right now? What exactly is the mission in Afghanistan right now? Does anyone know?
How'd I miss this?
I wouldn't have much a problem with it if the above were the case. It seems to still keep our primary aims in mind (getting rid the folks plotting against us because it's difficult, if not impossible, to capture them) without the loose guidelines that so often leads to innocent deaths (whether because of the way we classify "militants" or where we target people). I certainly wouldn't care about giving up some of the secrecy surrounding it because the administration seems to love trumpeting its various successes with the program while denying the very existence of the program. It'd make the program a lot more palatable to me than its current form.
The current program seems to make trade-offs that lean too heavily towards getting the target at all costs. What's the point of blowing up one or two militants/jihadists/whoever the hell we're targeting when we blow away innocent people in the process? Even if you don't see anything wrong with it on moral grounds, it still doesn't seem like a smart trade-off. If the whole aim is to paralyze or destroy these hostile groups, it seems to be a strange way of going about things when you continue to validate one of their reasons for existing (revenge for killing Muslims). I'm sure people become more likely to join these groups, or at least become more sympathetic to their goals, when their loved ones are being bombed by the entity these groups oppose.
The only other question I have in my mind about the use of drones is whether make us more likely to consider the use of force in our foreign policy. But that's more of a train of thought that goes beyond this topic IMO.
I'm leery of accepting any increasing surveillance or encroachment of civil liberties because of the potential for abuse. Speaking generally, even if you're the sort of person who doesn't mind it because you think Obama wouldn't abuse those powers, it's still a shortsighted stance. Whether he's out of office next January or January 2017, Obama's not going to be in office forever. Unless challenged, those curtailments on our civil liberties and increased surveillance will be here after his successor's inaugurated. We're going to have some shytty presidents in the future and I'd rather they didn't have the ability to spy on us and/or stifle dissent from their policies.
I'd rather be cautious and not simply trust our government to not overstep its bounds.
I wouldn't have much a problem with it if the above were the case. It seems to still keep our primary aims in mind (getting rid the folks plotting against us because it's difficult, if not impossible, to capture them) without the loose guidelines that so often leads to innocent deaths (whether because of the way we classify "militants" or where we target people). I certainly wouldn't care about giving up some of the secrecy surrounding it because the administration seems to love trumpeting its various successes with the program while denying the very existence of the program. It'd make the program a lot more palatable to me than its current form.
The current program seems to make trade-offs that lean too heavily towards getting the target at all costs. What's the point of blowing up one or two militants/jihadists/whoever the hell we're targeting when we blow away innocent people in the process? Even if you don't see anything wrong with it on moral grounds, it still doesn't seem like a smart trade-off. If the whole aim is to paralyze or destroy these hostile groups, it seems to be a strange way of going about things when you continue to validate one of their reasons for existing (revenge for killing Muslims). I'm sure people become more likely to join these groups, or at least become more sympathetic to their goals, when their loved ones are being bombed by the entity these groups oppose.
The only other question I have in my mind about the use of drones is whether make us more likely to consider the use of force in our foreign policy. But that's more of a train of thought that goes beyond this topic IMO.
I'm leery of accepting any increasing surveillance or encroachment of civil liberties because of the potential for abuse. Speaking generally, even if you're the sort of person who doesn't mind it because you think Obama wouldn't abuse those powers, it's still a shortsighted stance. Whether he's out of office next January or January 2017, Obama's not going to be in office forever. Unless challenged, those curtailments on our civil liberties and increased surveillance will be here after his successor's inaugurated. We're going to have some shytty presidents in the future and I'd rather they didn't have the ability to spy on us and/or stifle dissent from their policies.
I'd rather be cautious and not simply trust our government to not overstep its bounds.
that's a well thought out response my guy...
i agree with everything youre saying in principle. but i think the point im trying to make is there are more serious and FUNDAMENTAL issues that we need to address as a "responsible" society. we should not settle for "accepting" the lesser of two evils because that implies we are condoning the "evil" situation in the first place, which is morally wrong.
we are an imperialistic, war-driven country than brings oppression and exploitation to every country we interact with-which makes us MORALLY wrong.
and THATS the issue we need to resolve, not the drones in afghanistan. the drones in afghanistan are a SYMPTOM of the problem and we need to get to the ROOT of the problem, which is how our government is behaving, or rather, how we are ALLOWING our government to behave.
thats why i frown on these shallow political discussions... people might as well be talking about the young and the restless because 99% of politics is a TV show meant to distract the mass population from the reality of our grave situation... and it robs us of the time and energy we could be using to discuss and solve the REAL problems.
case in point, who gives a fukk about some random budget from a political candidate when on the macro level the govt/big business/federal reserve conglomerate is robbing muthafukkas blind and putting hundreds of thousands of people into poverty... and running the COUNTRY into poverty.
who gives a fukk about some random health care bill when at the macro level everything in our society, from the food to the water to the air is fukking poisoned and making us sick? dont you think we should focus our attention on THAT issue? shouldnt the more important issue take precedent?
i know im sounding idealistic but there's no way we are EVER going to get to the bottom of these problems if we dont confront them head-on, and that means analyzing and discussing these problems in the context of their totality, not avoiding something because it seems to complex or because we feel powerless. that kind of thinking is never going to get us to the promised land, it will only get us to become further invested in our own slavery and oppression.
and regarding your last comment, how familiar are you with Lupe's activities in social activism?
me personally, i dont care if someone has lived their entire life without EVER performing one single socially conscious act... and the first words out of their mouth are "Obama/the US govt is a baby killer."
you know why that's okay? because it's the TRUTH! and we should never criticize someone who is telling the truth, REGARDLESS of what context they are saying it in because TRUTH is infallible.
thats why this thread is so hilarious, but sad at the same time... people's advocacy for obama combined with ignorance of the political mechanisms of power has blinded them to the TRUTH of our situation, and thus, made them zombies.
///Vega+++
All Star
do those little children look like Malia and Sasha though
and the question i really have for people is simple... why are you waiting until YOU become a VICTIM of this social order before you get off your ass and do someting? why be reactive instead of proactive?
because we all know that is an inevitability with the beast, that one day YOU TOO will become a victim.
this is totally aside from the fact we should be advocating for social change simply on the grounds that many of our fellow human beings souls are being DEVOURED by this system. there are people out here living MISERABLE lives, suffering, sick, depressed, psychotic, hardened and cold from life's experiences to the point where they are living in a perpetual mental and emotional hell. that alone should be enough for us to get off our ass and do something.
but even if you dont care about the next man, you gotta know that eventually the beast is gonna call your number and come for your shyt, so why not start get organized and start preparing now?
cuz even if youre SELFISH it's in your best interest to strongly advocate for social change out of self preservation, because this current system is UNSUSTAINABLE on just about every front... economically, environmentally, education-wise, and in just about every other area of social development we are on the brink of disaster.
get a fukking clue people
because we all know that is an inevitability with the beast, that one day YOU TOO will become a victim.
this is totally aside from the fact we should be advocating for social change simply on the grounds that many of our fellow human beings souls are being DEVOURED by this system. there are people out here living MISERABLE lives, suffering, sick, depressed, psychotic, hardened and cold from life's experiences to the point where they are living in a perpetual mental and emotional hell. that alone should be enough for us to get off our ass and do something.
but even if you dont care about the next man, you gotta know that eventually the beast is gonna call your number and come for your shyt, so why not start get organized and start preparing now?
cuz even if youre SELFISH it's in your best interest to strongly advocate for social change out of self preservation, because this current system is UNSUSTAINABLE on just about every front... economically, environmentally, education-wise, and in just about every other area of social development we are on the brink of disaster.
get a fukking clue people
Honestly Lupe is right, The blood is on Obamas hands, We need to chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan as a L's like Vietnam, No way you going to win a Guerilla style war with them dudes out there.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
They could have won in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but the rest of the world wouldn't be too happy with it.
You think human rights abuses and collateral deaths are too much now? You wouldn't want to see an invading military really dominate then.
Me personally, I like the rule of law and human rights, so I think even this is overstepping, but I don't hide from the fact that war has gotten softer in the last 60-70 years, and it's mainly coming from holding the US and Western countries to a standard that the rest of the world doesn't have to conform to.
For example, during the Arab Spring, the government of Bahrain opened fire on a street full of peaceful protesters with a 50 caliber weapon. Where was the global outrage? You didn't hear shyt, especially when compared to something like what happened in Abu Ghraib Prison.
People being humilated versus a street full of people being massacred for voicing an opinion.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
We've killed 1.5-5 million Iraqi's? Displaced another 2-3 million?
I sure would like to see our military "go all out" if that's the case.
What's the point of having a military if you don't use it right?
If the media attacked insert they would be attacking Islam.
That an automatic no go in the West.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Between 1.2 and 4.5 million people died in the Siege of Leningrad in WWII.
England was bombed daily during WWII. Two nukes dropped by the US. Most of the deaths were civilian deaths. We won't get into what the Japanese did in invading China.
The Battle of Okinawa lasted 82 days and 150,000 people died. The battles in the Chinese Civil War had casualties of 300-600,000.
That's going all out.
I see what you're saying, but lets say tour Army does go all out, you know that Guerillas are like cockroaches, they find a way to make it back over and over, its a never ending cycle.