CRACKDOWN on "conspiracy theorism"/unAmerican activities on babble
Why are we accusing American dissident Webster Tarpley of being a conspiracy theorist? He's simply expressing an opinion and critical of the empire's long-time imperialist maneuvering in John Foster Dulles' "Middle East".
Tarpley is an anti-imperialist:
Tarpley is a critic of the Dalai Lama; in 2010 he told the state-funded Russia Today that "pre-1959 Tibet ... was probably the closest thing to hell on earth that you had ... social reform was impossible." In the interview he criticizes US funding of pro-Dalai Lama organizations, which he says amounts to US$2 million per year, saying "this is a bad deal for the American taxpayers."
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Tarpley guilty of peacemongering?
Scholars for 9/11 Truth dangerous dissidents?
Is it really conspiratorial to post anti-imperialist material on an anti-imperialist social forum?
Or is this just your run o' the mill, thinly veiled crackdown on unAmerican activities? Net nannies to the rescue, or babble minders steering us away from being far too anti-imperialist for someone's liking?
Perhaps babblers should start their own Otpor putsch to remove these dictatorial minders from mini power instructing us on what we will and will not discuss under their watchful eyes.
Moving to rabble reactions...
After this, I think I'll start a thread about grumbling being only permitted in the designated space.
@ Fidel: I agree with you. I am deeply uncomfortable with moderators deciding what can and cannot be discussed. By all means, try to keep people polite and in the right forum, but taking moderating beyond that is a recipe for a thinly-populated echo chamber.
@ Fidel: I agree with you. I am deeply uncomfortable with moderators deciding what can and cannot be discussed. By all means, try to keep people polite and in the right forum, but taking moderating beyond that is a recipe for a thinly-populated echo chamber.
I agree as well. While I don't agree with Fidel's assertions, I agree that it is something that is permissible to at least discuss.
Hey!!..a quotes thread.
Spectacular domination's first priority was to make historical knowledge in general disappear; beginning with just about all rational information and commentary on the most recent past. The evidence for this is so glaring it hardly needs further explanation. With mastery the spectacle organizes ignorance of what is about to happen and, immediately afterwards, the forgetting of whatever has nonetheless been understood. The most important is the most hidden.
They are pretty good moderators imo. I think they will give and take a little.
They have to. babble is all we've got.
It's all we have. Pray for mercy.
Because if Tarpley and his peacemongers are right, imperialists are trying to start WW III or perhaps just world domination in general. And I think war/world domination by the financial oligarchy and warfiteering industrial complex is fairly anti-people in general.
Didn't an US Supreme Court justice say he couldn't define pornography but he could recognize it when he saw it? I feel in a similar manner about conspiracy theories. The almost always fly in the face of Occam's Razor.
More bullying by this sorry excuse of a moderator.
"Larouchean" lol. The trans-Siberian railroad guy? Keep throwing meaningless labels around.
Tell me more about how Pinochet's installation in 1973 was due to a popular uprising.
If you have a problem with my moderating, Apples, critique it in this thread. Don't insult me again in my place of work, or I will suspend you.
Your dismal logic:
Tarpley and Larouche worked together 25 years ago, ergo everything Tarpley writes is "Larouchean". Never mind the fact they broke apart 16 years ago. Aren't you ashamed of posting such a dumb argument?
Not very impressive. I mean WTF, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on this site.
And a dash of bullying to follow your guilt by association.
Pathetic.
I'm not surprised you're too insecure to handle criticisms. The fact is that you must realize on some level your position on this issue is dictated by political fashions, not political reality. So you're closing off information.
Shut thread !! ban !!!
Seems like people feel entitled to babble.
For continuing your personal attacks after being asked to stop, 500_Apples, I'm giving you 24 hours off. This is my place of work and I won't tolerate an abusive workplace. In case you missed it, this thread is still open.
Thanks for your kind and respectful comments, Fidel.
If you have a problem with my moderating, Apples, critique it in this thread. Don't insult me again in my place of work, or I will suspend you.
Lyndon Larouche is in his 80's today and out of the presidential running. I think Tarpley was associated with them in the early 1990s. That was then.
Why are we using right wing tactics in an attempt to smear U.S. dissidents? Tarpley's message is what's important not any affiliation with a former US presidential candidate, Larouche, a former Marxist and Liberal Democrat himself.
Because today there are U.S. conservatives and lefties like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader aligning themselves against the pro war, pro Wall Street Liberal Democrats joined at hip to the Neocon cabal.
Yes there are anti-war advocates of all political stripes in the U.S. And Tarpley is among them.
Let's have the courage to attack the message and not the messenger.
If you are looking for a harrassment free workplace, shouldn't you have a responsibility towards it too? In my experience, you are as big a contributor to harrassment and personal attacks as anyone- but you get to have the hammer coming home- so you get to enforce your bullying and snide commentary. I think you might do with a 24 hour introspection yourself frankly.
The reason I'm here is to read discussion that is an honest reflection of differing opinions. More and more outspoken individuals are being banned not for violating babble policy but for violating the reigning ideology.
The present babble is only a hollow shell of the lively forum before the dark day we must not speak of. Original thinkers are expelled or hounded out.
or just slowly drift away.
I recall saying, some time ago, that continuing to tolerate conspiracy theory threads would come back to bite babble in the ass.
Can't believe I'm saying this...but lets all take that last deep breath before the insurrection really breaks out, just to see if we really want to go there. Or better yet, lets all head over to Free Dominion or someplace similar for awhile. We might be surprised at what it could do for solidarity around here. And oh yeah..boo hoo about the workplace thing. You manage the joint.
Well that was an unfortunate comment about tolerance of others on a left wing forum.
Snert's been banned? Where did this happen?
While Snert's purpose here was to some degree motivated by trying to provoke people (he admitted so on a thread a couple of weeks ago - George Victor called him on it), he toned down his act quite a bit from his previous incarnation, Mr. Magoo.
That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.
in defense of fairness, it's one thing to say "you're wrong, here's why" and it's another thing to say someone is wrong, but also "pathetic, dumb, etc"....
it's using words like that that make this place toxic sometimes. If poster could just keep it inside the bounds of respectful debate and not heaping on the insulting language we wouldn't have these problems. Sure, the mods sometimes make contradictory decisions, but they're people not computer programs.
I've disagreed with the mods on several occasions and i've never been banned or suspended because i'm not hurtling insults at them and denigrating them as people. is that so hard?
While Snert's purpose here was to some degree motivated by trying to provoke people...he toned down his act quite a bit from his previous incarnation, Mr. Magoo.
Snert was Mr. Magoo? ha!
The present babble is only a hollow shell of the lively forum before the dark day we must not speak of. Original thinkers are expelled or hounded out.
I agree, but that dark day came about as many of us left as an expression of solidarity with Audra, a moderator.
I wish some of these original thinkers could learn how to discuss their feelings in respectful language.
If I found myself calling others on here (especially the mods) pathetic I would feel embarrassed.
What got my goat was being accused of being an "enabler of empire" for suggesting that the dark races were capable of thinking for themselves.
And then there's this thread title, where making such a suggestion is equated with McCarthyism.
With respect, I have problems with the idea that Babbles anti-imperialist policy prohibits discussion of imperialism interfering in the domestic affairs of people by fostering or supporting popular uprisings or civil unrest. .Such tactics have been used by imperialists for thousands of years. and certainly have been used in modern times . Whether or not they have been used in the Arab Spring is, I submit, a fit topic for discussion.:
--------------------------------------
The United States made use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to do away with a string of unfriendly Third World governments and to support allied ones.[71] In 1953, President Eisenhower's Central Intelligence Agency implemented Operation Ajax, a covert operation aimed at the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The popularly-elected and non-aligned Mosaddegh had been a Middle Eastern nemesis of Britain since nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. Churchill told the United States that Mosaddegh was "increasingly turning towards communism" and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere.[131][132][133][134] The pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, assumed control as an autocratic monarch.[135] The shah's policies included the banning of the communist Tudeh Party and general suppression of political dissent by SAVAK, the shah's domestic security and intelligence agency.
In Guatemala, a CIA-backed military coup ousted the left-wing President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954.[136] The post-Arbenz government, a military junta headed by Carlos Castillo Armas, returned nationalized American property, set up a National Committee of Defense Against Communism, and decreed a Preventive Penal Law Against Communism at the request of the United States.[137]
In the Republic of the Congo, newly independent from Belgium since June 1960, the CIA-cultivated President Joseph Kasa-Vubu ordered the dismissal of the democratically-elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and the Lumumba cabinet in September; Lumumba called for Kasa-Vubu's dismissal instead.[138] In the ensuing Congo Crisis, the CIA-backed Colonel Mobutu quickly mobilized his forces to seize power through a military coup d'état.[138]
In British Guiana, the leftist People's Progressive Party (PPP) candidate Cheddi Jagan won the position of chief minister in a colonially-administered election in 1953, but was quickly forced to resign from power after Britain's suspension of the still-dependent nation's constitution.[139] Embarrassed by the landslide electoral victory of Jagan's allegedly Marxist party, the British imprisoned the PPP's leadership and maneuvered the organization into a divisive rupture in 1955, engineering a split between Jagan and his PPP colleagues.[140] Jagan again won the colonial elections in 1957 and 1961; despite Britain's shift to a reconsideration of its view of the left-wing Jagan as a Soviet-style communist at this time, the United States pressured the British to withhold Guyana's independence until an alternative to Jagan could be identified, supported, and brought into office.[141].
-----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
-------------------
Operation Mongoose was a secret program of propaganda, psychological warfare, and sabotage against Cuba to remove the communists from power; which was a prime focus of the Kennedy administration, according to Harvard historian Jorge Domínguez.[1] A document from the US Department of State confirms that the project aimed to "help Cuba overthrow the Communist regime", including its leader Fidel Castro, and it aimed "for a revolt which can take place in Cuba by October 1962". US policy makers also wanted to see "a new government with which the United States can live in peace". (Source: US Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States 1961-1963, Volume X Cuba, 1961-1962 Washington, DC [1])
-------------
In 1972, the monetary policies increasing the amount of circulating currency, adopted by economics minister Pedro Vuskovic, devalued the escudo, provoking inflation to 140 percent in 1972 and engendering a black market economy.[10] The Allende Government acted against the black market with organised distribution of basic products. In October 1972, Chile suffered the first of many socially confrontational strikes — led by the Chilean rich — openly supported by U.S. President Richard Nixon via the CIA.[11]
Soon, small-scale businessmen, some professional unions, and student groups joined the strike. Its leaders — Vilarín, Jaime Guzmán, Rafael Cumsille, Guillermo Elton, Eduardo Arriagada — expected to depose the elected government. Other than damaging the national economy, the principal effect of the twenty-four-day strike was drawing Army head, Gen. Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister, an appeasement to the right wing.[10] Gen. Prats succeeded Gen. René Schneider after his assassination on 24 October 1970, by the groups of Gen. Roberto Viaux and Gen. Camilo Valenzuela whom the CIA financed and logistically supported. Moreover, Gen. Prats supported the legalist Schneider Doctrine and refused military involvement in a coup d'état against President Allende.[12]
Despite the declining economy, President Allende's Popular Unity coalition increased its vote to 43.2 percent in the March 1973 parliamentary elections, however, by then, the informal alliance between Popular Unity and the Christian Democrats ended.[13] The Christian Democrats allied with the right-wing National Party, who were opposed to Allende's Socialist government; the two right-wing parties forming the Confederación Democrática (CODE) (The Democratic Coalition). The internecine parliamentary conflict, between legislature and the executive branch paralyzed practical government.[14] To destabilise the Allende Government, the CIA paid some U.S.$8 million to right-wing opposition groups to "create pressures, exploit weaknesses, magnify obstacles" and hasten President Allende's deposition.[15][16] The CIA report released in 2000 records some U.S. $6.8 million spent for the deposition.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973
--------
And I think we are all aware of imperialist support for Afghan "freedom fighters" seeking "freedom" from soviet rule.
None of this is meant to deny popular support for uprisings against unpopular government, It is meant to show that imperialism can and does foster and support popular uprisings, and that possible imperialist fostering and support of popular uprisings is a valid topic for discussion on Babble.
solidarity
Peter:
The thread in question wasn't just talking about this or that coup d'etat being organized or supported by the Americans, or about the Americans trying to influence events in already existing movements. It was saying that the entire Arab Spring, involving thousands of activists of varying ideological stripes. scattered across several nations and two continents, only happened because the CIA willed it to happen.
The thread in question...was saying that the entire Arab Spring, involving thousands of activists of varying ideological stripes. scattered across several nations and two continents, only happened because the CIA willed it to happen.
It's too simplistic to make either of these assertions: That the Arab Spring was
1. 100% caused by the CIA (and that popular action played no role) or
2. 100% due to popular action (and that the CIA had zero involvement).
The first assertion is not only simplistic but it is demonstrably false (there were massive protests and, in many cases, harsh reprisals against the protesters). The second assertion, given past history, is almost certainly false.
As someone noted earlier, reality almost certainly falls somewhere between those two extremes...and that the relative influences are matters of degree and matters of legitimate discussion.
That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.
Snert was Magoo??! I would've expected more swearing....
These Arab Spring threads are proof that there is no radical left in Canada, and that those who claim to be part of radical leftist movements should be denied power, because of their softcore racism.
As opposed to giving the power to the hardcore racism of those on the right CMOT?
Such nonsensical comments CMOT are surely below your capabilities?!
That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.
Snert was Magoo??! I would've expected more swearing....
Well he was banned back then for saying fuck. So yeah
Not to worry; we should expect a cleverly-disguised "Señor Snert" to show up here any time.
Considering how many people that get banned come back and since they cannot ban by IP,I'd say that would be a surety
If the most secretive government(s) in history were a little more transparent and accountable to the public, then there would be little need to speculate as to what they are up to on the sly.
Government secrecy and democracy are incompatible themes as a rule.
Cold war's over. It's time to end the bullshit.
The most recent cosmetic government in Washington has four or five wars on the go as things stand now.
That U.S. hawks and "Liberal Democrats" are planning more wars of aggression and counterrevolutions is not conspiratorial - which is naked apologism for megalomaniacal psychopaths planning to violate international laws since Nuremberg and commit mass murder in the name of a buck and imperial maneuvering.
It's actually a high probability based on their already established record in power for warmongering and blitzkriegs without provocation.
With respect, I have problems with the idea that Babbles anti-imperialist policy prohibits discussion of imperialism interfering in the domestic affairs of people by fostering or supporting popular uprisings or civil unrest.
If your point is valid, it is not supported by the examples you list in your post. None of them involved imperialism fomenting popular uprisings. And in none of them was the target of the imperialists a government that was one of their own client states, such as Qaddafi's Libya or Mubarak's Egypt, Assad's Syria, the Bahrain controlled by the al-Khalifa family, or the Tunisia of Ben Ali.
Is he trying to tell us that the empire has nothing to do with neoliberal globalization and the resultant rebellions? Or is this just more wild coincidence?
And the ideologues just naturally believe that their globalization agenda is entirely democratic, above board and fearing no rebellions? No contingency planning or offensive maneuvering against China and BRIC countries at all? Vicious empire loyalists voluntarily laying down on the tracks for history to run them over?
That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.
Snert was Magoo??! I would've expected more swearing....
Well he was banned back then for saying fuck. So yeah
I'd have to say that I think that policy's been retired.
And I thought it was because he said mermaid.
It's a funny line, but it doesn't accurately reflect why Magoo was banned. I do recall a social understanding on this board that it's not cool to post about banned babblers.
(Posted with Pogo, and not as a response to Pogo.)
With respect, I have problems with the idea that Babbles anti-imperialist policy prohibits discussion of imperialism interfering in the domestic affairs of people by fostering or supporting popular uprisings or civil unrest.
If your point is valid, it is not supported by the examples you list in your post. None of them involved imperialism fomenting popular uprisings. And in none of them was the target of the imperialists a government that was one of their own client states, such as Qaddafi's Libya or Mubarak's Egypt, Assad's Syria, the Bahrain controlled by the al-Khalifa family, or the Tunisia of Ben Ali.
The CIA and its western allies have dropped support for their dictators from time to time when they couldn't get the job done, or when the dictators themselves became too independent of their controllers. Peter's examples are good ones. And especially the muhahideen through al-Qaeda and Taliban. They raised hell in that country and then dropped them like hot potatoes once Afghanistan descended into chaos and civil war from 1992 to 1996. NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage.
They did similar in Vietnam and Cambodia after the doctor and madman bombed hell out of those countries. There was starvation and dire straights for millions of people after the crimes were committed. The Sovs were Cambodians only means of foreign aid up to 1987-88 or so.
Chomsky says the world is run like the mafia. Very little happens without approval or the don's full awareness, whether imminent attacks by foreign threats or rebellions in some corner of the empire. General Pinochet wasn't the only one who knew when a mouse stirred in the remotest parts of Chile. And surely the CIA knew what was going down when DINA agents murderered Orlando Letelier in Washington.
There is no code of honour between imperialists and their puppets. Their treachery knows no bounds. If we observe just Zbigniew Brzezinski's racist remarks concerning a "few stirred up Muslims" being worth the greater goal of overthrowing the Soviet Union, it's apparent how imperialists think about the dupes and puppets they use and abuse along the way to expanding empire.
Qadaffi knew that Saddam was a puppet of the empire. At a meeting of the Arab league he tried warning Arab leaders that if their controllers would turn on Saddam, any of them could be next.
Is he trying to tell us that the empire has nothing to do with neoliberal globalization and the resultant rebellions?
Why do you insist on an all-or-nothing stance? I don't think anyone is claiming that it's not possible (or even unlikely) that the CIA played some role in the Arab Spring.
I'm not all or nothing. But I think that the most well funded intelligence agency, and the most secretive government in world history is deeply involved.
Tarpley talks about Brian McCarthy admitting to NED funding of Otpor in 1990s Serbia. Milosevic was doing just fine with implementing the neoliberal agenda on behalf of the west as was Qaddafi according to the IMF in February of this year.
Neoliberalism is not about creating widespread prosperity or democracy. It's about concentrating wealth in the hands of a relative few. I am hearing a lot on our news lately about G8-20 leaders suggesting that the cure for uprisings and social unrest is democracy which they equate with open markets. And we know what they mean by opening countries up to free market ideology.
It means countries must sacrifice national goals and protections for monetary control from abroad, central control of money and credit in some other country. What they are doing with marauding capital today is what used to be done by marching armies into soveriegn countries and military occupations. And when the dictators or any country with an independent agenda refuses to allow marauding capital to scoop up the moneymakers and natural resource wealth, then the propaganda machine kicks in. Then it's a matter of time as to when the bombing begins.
I'm not all or nothing. But I think that the most well funded intelligence agency, and the most secretive government in world history is deeply involved.
Thanks for that clarification.
It's a funny line, but it doesn't accurately reflect why Magoo was banned. I do recall a social understanding on this board that it's not cool to post about banned babblers.
(Posted with Pogo, and not as a response to Pogo.)
A social understanding gets you banned? Shouldnt it be in the rules then governing babble?
I believe writer is referring to what's taking place on this thread right now.
It's too simplistic to make either of these assertions: That the Arab Spring was
1. 100% caused by the CIA (and that popular action played no role) or
2. 100% due to popular action (and that the CIA had zero involvement).
The first assertion is not only simplistic but it is demonstrably false (there were massive protests and, in many cases, harsh reprisals against the protesters). The second assertion, given past history, is almost certainly false.
As someone noted earlier, reality almost certainly falls somewhere between those two extremes...and that the relative influences are matters of degree and matters of legitimate discussion.
Following this logic, the threads I started were about 50% false. Too bad they were 100% closed.
I believe writer is referring to what's taking place on this thread right now.
Ah my error. Sorry about that
From 500_Apples' closed thread:
Is it possible to believe both that there was an organic movement and that foreign powers used clandestine means in efforts to shape the movement? Perhaps it then becomes a question of degrees - how much foreign influence and how effective was it?
To clarify, this is exactly the kind of discussion babble is meant to have. The threads in question, supported by Larouchean articles, are not.
...based on your arbitrary criteria. My forum title reads 'rabble-rouser' but why do I feel increasingly like 'muzzled-dog'?
There was ample opportunity in every thread you closed for opponents of the argument to voice their opinion - and boy did they! So if your criteria for a "Babble-worthy" discussion is the representation of both arguments, then those threads were not lacking. I would like to point out that not once did any opponent give evidence to the contrary, no matter how superficially it may have eroded the initial hypothesis.
A defense lawyer does not go into the courtroom embodying both sides of the case. Oh and if those threads were a court of law, you would have been asking for an appeal about now. The idea that every forum thread must adequately address polar dimensions of an issue is absurd. We are not writing unbiased reports from the front. Even Rabble stories are tilted. So until you can prove to me that my comments were "racist", "orientalist", "imperialist", or "enablist", I disagree with your decisions.
Your grounds for closing the threads were completely contrived. Just admit it.
Shut thread !! ban !!!
May we take this post mean you have reconsidered your quasi-flounce of the closed thread?
I don't participate in the tinfoil hat threads. To me they are silly but, I do opine that those who wish to discuss those issues should be left alone to do so.
I much prefer a dingy tavern with spilled beer and peanut shells on the floor, 2 chaps arm wrestling at one table, a chess game underway on another and some dour communists plotting in the corner to a refined drawing room debate where only certain individuals and vetted subjects are allowed.
Trying to maintain a polite debating society among such a diverse, anonymous and passionate crowd is akin to herding cats. babble is losing (lost) its edge and becoming tedious and boring.
Sounds like some of my favourite evenings
Well I think I'll take this opportunity to announce my departure from babble as well since 500_Apples' thread was shutdown so quickly.
babble has become too pro imperialist and intolerant of legitimate dissident views for my liking. The well is poisoned.
Perhaps the business people should solicit donations from NED, IRI, USAid, "al-Qa'bong"(racist handle if ever there was one), Timebandit etc. Because I refuse to have anything more to do
with the American inquisition disguised as a progressive left wing forum. It's too bad, really.
It's been fun. Good luck to all you genuine lefties. You know who you are. The struggle for democracy continues. Carry on fighting the good fight. Over and out.
Off!
Well I think I'll take this opportunity to announce my departure from babble as well since 500_Apples' thread was shutdown so quickly.
babble has become too pro imperialist and intolerant of legitimate dissident views for my liking. The well is poisoned.
Perhaps the business people should solicit donations from NED, IRI, USAid, "al-Qa'bong"(racist handle if ever there was one), Timebandit etc. Because I refuse to have anything more to do
with the American inquisition disguised as a progressive left wing forum. It's too bad, really.
It's been fun. Good luck to all you genuine lefties. You know who you are. The struggle for democracy continues. Carry on fighting the good fight. Over and out.
Off!
Well that's lamentable. Stay and rabble rouse.
What got my goat was being accused of being an "enabler of empire" for suggesting that the dark races were capable of thinking for themselves.
And then there's this thread title, where making such a suggestion is equated with McCarthyism.
Blatantly racist. And I was accused of being racist and orientalist in my previous thread? Cripes, mods! Get your heads in the game! I haven't even been here 2 months, but this one's got an offensive moniker AND makes comments like this.
It's too simplistic to make either of these assertions: That the Arab Spring was
1. 100% caused by the CIA (and that popular action played no role)
The first assertion is not only simplistic but it is demonstrably false (there were massive protests and, in many cases, harsh reprisals against the protesters). The second assertion, given past history, is almost certainly false.
As someone noted earlier, reality almost certainly falls somewhere between those two extremes...and that the relative influences are matters of degree and matters of legitimate discussion.
Although there may have been a diversity of groups present, that does not preclude an external body from applying the initial push. What I and some other Babblers contended was that these revolutions indeed occurred, but their impetus was applied externally with full knowledge of its aftereffects. Period. Coming to any other conclusion of our meaning - and there were a great many diversions - is disingenuous and inflammatory.
Well I think I'll take this opportunity to announce my departure from babble as well since 500_Apples' thread was shutdown so quickly.
babble has become too pro imperialist and intolerant of legitimate dissident views for my liking. The well is poisoned.
Really?
Well I think I'll take this opportunity to announce my departure from babble as well since 500_Apples' thread was shutdown so quickly.
babble has become too pro imperialist and intolerant of legitimate dissident views for my liking. The well is poisoned.
Really?
How can babble lose Snert and Fidel in the same damned day?! Is there a full moon glowering down at us?
Com'on back, Fidel.
Seriously.
What got my goat was being accused of being an "enabler of empire" for suggesting that the dark races were capable of thinking for themselves.
And then there's this thread title, where making such a suggestion is equated with McCarthyism.
Blatantly racist. And I was accused of being racist and orientalist in my previous thread? Cripes, mods! Get your heads in the game! I haven't even been here 2 months, but this one's got an offensive moniker AND makes comments like this.
What's racist about this post, or my handle? I'm genuinely curious.
And what did Snert do to get banned?
And what did Snert do to get banned?
See this thread.
What got my goat was being accused of being an "enabler of empire" for suggesting that the dark races were capable of thinking for themselves.
And then there's this thread title, where making such a suggestion is equated with McCarthyism.
Dark races? As opposed to what, the European Light races? And Al-Qa'bong as a trite play on...?
I was thinking more of pure, white races, but yeah. I guess the intent of my comment flew past you.
And al-Qa'bong is a play (Trite? Who are you kidding?) on the name of a famous masked Hanna Barbera character. I need it as a disguise , seeing as folks with my real last name end up in places like Khiam prison for, wait for it...resisting empire.
Well I think I'll take this opportunity to announce my departure from babble as well since 500_Apples' thread was shutdown so quickly.
babble has become too pro imperialist and intolerant of legitimate dissident views for my liking. The well is poisoned.
Perhaps the business people should solicit donations from NED, IRI, USAid, "al-Qa'bong"(racist handle if ever there was one), Timebandit etc. Because I refuse to have anything more to do
with the American inquisition disguised as a progressive left wing forum. It's too bad, really.
It's been fun. Good luck to all you genuine lefties. You know who you are. The struggle for democracy continues. Carry on fighting the good fight. Over and out.
Off!
Sorry to see you go Fidel. I think I will go with....haven't posted more than a handful in the last year or so, best that way. Cheers.
Thanks Polly. I've missed your comments. Take care.
[one more for the road]Well that changes things, Q. Your claim to ethnicity makes your racist babble handle approximately twice as dumb as before. You were only a point five before the above post. Now you're rounded up to a large hole between your ears. And your use of the word 'race' to identify people is interesting as well. You and Catchfire aren't very big, but you both can be pretty dumb sometimes.
"Larouchean" lol. The trans-Siberian railroad guy? Keep throwing meaningless labels around.
Tell me more about how Pinochet's installation in 1973 was due to a popular uprising.
And if a consensus of progressive babblers become fed up with the bullying and idiotic comments by moderators at any time in future, they might try a peaceful rebellion of their own. Write to rabble's business people, publisher, Duncan Cameron etc, and let them
know how you feel about the moderating. Twitter revolutions are said to sometimes be effective, too.
And no I don't support CIA funded Otpor or colour revolutions for meddling in other countries' sovereign affairs. But apparently some people around here think it's all just another conspiracy theory/unAmericanism. And so they shouldn't mind at all if babblers attempt something similar along the way toward democratizing babble.
Peace out.
You leave over a difference of opinion vis-a-vis moderating style, which you infer as being touched up with imperialism, while sticking with a party where 103 of them recently voted for it. I don't get it. How about a little consistency at least.
You leave over a difference of opinion vis-a-vis moderating style, which you infer as being touched up with imperialism, while sticking with a party where 103 of them recently voted for it. I don't get it. How about a little consistency at least.
I get where you're coming from Slumberjack, but let's have a little solidarity in this thread at least. The mods are shutting down critical discourse just like the state shut it down in the wake of 9/11, because it was "unpatriotic". Except this time it's "insensitive" to the sacrifices of the N.African/Middle East revolutionaries, which, by the way, none of us has denied.
I was thinking more of pure, white races, but yeah. I guess the intent of my comment flew past you.
And al-Qa'bong is a play (Trite? Who are you kidding?) on the name of a famous masked Hanna Barbera character. I need it as a disguise , seeing as folks with my real last name end up in places like Khiam prison for, wait for it...resisting empire.
No, I got the gist. It doesn't excuse your deplorable comment. If I had satirized the state of downtown Baltimore's largely African-American population, could I have used the 'n' word? Sheesh.
Anyways I'm done pointing out your character deficiencies. Let me be as a poor sop in a firing line.
Is anyone keeping a count of how many people have been banned, suspended of left in the last 24 hours? What a royal (or should I say radical) fuck up.
Hey, I quoted an extract from Debord up thread, and...I called the mod a 'manager.' What more do you want? But I have leanings all around here on this particular issue. On one side of the coin the hands of the corporate imperium in all of its manifestations are never idle hands. The entire history of western commercial rule and its interests as they pertain to the North America context alone has been one of continuous divide and conquer with genocidal implications. In our time we can observe spontaneity from any population anywhere as being of great concern to them. The imperative to engineer a position out in front of any such impromptu outbursts finds a very compelling motivation in profit driven megalomania as the horrifying reality, as it has always been.
On the other side, a notion which suggests that nothing in the form of aspirations toward freedom and democracy occurs to people around the world, except for what the west dangles in front of them, is a disgusting one. The unavoidable correlation, unless we're being necessarily emphatic about it, is that people were injured, tortured, and died in support of a vision that wasn't their own, that was implanted for nefarious effect. The fact that we've been drawn in to the latest media fable about an "Arab Spring" obscures the fact that each instance of popular revolt is underwritten by entirely unique sets of circumstances.
In our attempts to analyze the totality of it, or in parts as they occur, we can't help but to become immersed in our own confusion in relation to all of the manufactured contradictions which appear to be escaping the grasp of the imperium's overlords. That they give off every sign of being in a state of crisis everywhere doesn't mean we have to start our own crisis here. For that reason alone I think its collectively worth the effort to extend ourselves here to ask 500 Apples, Fidel and Polly Bee to reconsider, and correspondingly, to ask for a little more faith from the mods when it comes to determining the intent of people who've been around for awhile.
ETA: Thanks May for your thoughts.
Is anyone keeping a count of how many people have been banned, suspended of left in the last 24 hours? What a royal (or should I say radical) fuck up.
I have a feeling they'll be back.
I stay. It is a privilege to participate in these forums. I consider myself a pretty civil commentator until insults are flung my way. Contrary to what some people here might believe, I did not start the 'USA Manufactured the Arab Spring' threads because of my love for empire or thinly veiled racism. Looking back at my most recent comments, they're a tad heavy-handed, but so was the crackdown on critical discourse.
I recognized immediately that the events of the Arab Spring drew striking parallels to the People Power revolution of my parents' generation. In that case, the CIA installed its puppet. I began digging using a simple Google search. Lo and behold! Ample evidence pointing to CIA complicity. Each article, examined individually out of the context of the whole discussion, can still throw doubt upon the prevailing opinion that the revolutions were spontaneous. That is my rebuttal to my opponents' claims that the stringing together of my sources was haphazard. They still have not addressed this.
To me it speaks more to our desire to surrogate our current struggles here at home. We want so badly to overthrow the neoliberals that we cling on to any semblance of popular movement, even if it contains underpinnings of Western intervention. I see no greater threat to the advancement of progressive ideas than the complete shuttering of debate stemming from, as Fidel put it, the "fetishization" of progressive movements to compensate for our largely benign socialist initiatives.
On the other side, a notion which suggests that nothing in the form of aspirations toward freedom and democracy occurs to people around the world, except for what the west dangles in front of them, is a disgusting one. The unavoidable correlation, unless we're being necessarily emphatic about it, is that people were injured, tortured, and died in support of a vision that wasn't their own, that was implanted for nefarious effect. The fact that we've been drawn in to the latest media fable about an "Arab Spring" obscures the fact that each instance of popular revolt is underwritten by entirely unique sets of circumstances.
I think that is the critical statement. The title of my previous threads was "The USA Manufactured the Arab Spring". That is not all-encompassing of the legitimate struggles of the people in that region. It speaks to the revolution in its current manifestation. You will be hard-pressed to find proof in those threads that I denied genuine unrest and dissent.
'Manufacture' means to create. To use an industrial analogy, a car is manufactured when its components are assembled. Those pieces may have come from a variety of other manufacturers with a variety of manufacturing styles. However, the car manufacturer puts it all together. In this analogy, the CIA is the car manufacturer. It harnessed the potential energies of popular revolution and redirected them.
I don't understand why it occurred to my opponents that I denied the sacrifice and the reality of the revolutions. I was referring to its impetus. Period.
I was going on the assumption all along that you didn't intend to infer what was attributed to you. The point about being necessarily emphatic has been borne out I believe. You may have survived your hazing as a relative newcomer, but we've lost a few along the way and now it's time to try and gather them back up.
No, I got the gist. It doesn't excuse your deplorable comment. If I had satirized the state of downtown Baltimore's largely African-American population, could I have used the 'n' word? Sheesh.
OK, Fidel is gone, Snert is gone, and in general a lot of people that made me like babble in 2008 or so are gone.
My purpose with these threads was to explore the role of western intelligence agencies within the "Arab spring". Is it like Iran 1953? Chile 1973? Ukraine and Yugoslavia in the 1990s? Or is it more like Iran 1978 or Algeria 1962? Somewhere in between? What factors are completely new? It is worth investigating in my opinion, and it is not at all a priori obvious which is the correct model.
It is a denial of reality, and thus implicitly racist, to deny the role of power relations in these conflicts. The reason it's valid to ascribe a role to Washington, London and Paris is that they have the most power. In Bahrain, where protesters were undermining a pro-US government, tanks were pointed at them, many of them were executed, and the protests were reduced.
There are historical examples of the west seeding false revolutions. I'm in Chile right now.
Back in 1973, if you said the CIA was involved in the Pinochet coup, you were to be considered a lunatic "conspiracy theorist". Today, the whole planet knows what really happened.
By the way, the term Arab Spring is itself racist, as it implicitly assumes that the social dynamics are the same as that in the Paris spring, rather than being specific to the historical situation at hand.
To Catchfire: If you don't want to be insulted, you should adopt the effective strategy of not insulting people first. I personally practice reciprocity and treat other people as they treat me, if you start calling other people imperialist or larouchean and condescendingly closing their threads based on fabricated anti-historical pretenses, expect to be hit back. Look at how much damage your attitude has done to the forum in the last 24 hours.
So long babble. Anyone who wants to keep in touch, send a PM.
500 Apples:
Don't forget St. Petersburg, 1917
And while I have sympathy for alienation, I don't think the rules are much different in love than they are on the internet. There are a lot of fish in the sea (though we may have to amend that saying soon).
If you need to go, by all means go and I will be sorry for it. But frankly I find flouncing kind of self-indulgent and distasteful. I can think of a number of people who are also missed but who have not made such a drama of it.
By the way, the term Arab Spring is itself racist, as it implicitly assumes that the social dynamics are the same as that in the Paris spring, rather than being specific to the historical situation at hand.
Like the "Prague Spring?"
That clear enough?
Although the titles of the threads closed may be enough to excuse moderator closure, the statement of allowable discussion goes well beyond any recapitulation of any babble "anti-imperialist" position.
It makes a political assessment of non-imperialism as an indisputable fact; a simplistic assessment of pro vs anti-regime change dynamics in situations which are far more complex than that of assumed progressive forces representing the so-called "arab spring".
Yes, to claim that the "arab spring" was invented by the CIA and does not have roots in popular uprising against tyranny is absurd--and demonstrably so.
But to suggest that the regime change forces in all these countries all represent progressive, anti-imperialist impulses is also absurd--and demonstrably so.
To say that the CIA and "imperialist manipulation" has little or no part in both the current pro and anti-regime change forces (depending on the state involved) is equally absurd--and demonstrably so.
I was going on the assumption all along that you didn't intend to infer what was attributed to you. The point about being necessarily emphatic has been borne out I believe. You may have survived your hazing as a relative newcomer, but we've lost a few along the way and now it's time to try and gather them back up.
I was pretty incessant, huh? I just felt like my protests were being largely ignored - that the moderators slapped a blanket offense on the thread and closed it without any consultation. I understand that as mods they have the power and privilege to do so. Oh well...
It seems my earlier comment is still whooshing past you. Turn the mirror around, old chap.
I'm just gonna concede at this point. To be honest, I don't have any issues with anyone on this forum until I get insulted. I'm glad to debate as long we remain civil and not resort to insulting each others' intelligences.
500 Apples wrote:
My purpose with these threads was to explore the role of western intelligence agencies within the "Arab spring". Is it like Iran 1953? Chile 1973? Ukraine and Yugoslavia in the 1990s? Or is it more like Iran 1978 or Algeria 1962? Somewhere in between? What factors are completely new? It is worth investigating in my opinion, and it is not at all a priori obvious which is the correct model.
I think these threads might have gotten off to a better start had the original title been something like "American influence in Arab Spring outcomes?". Which would have acknowledged the complexity of the social movements and the multiplicity of the players. Instead, we got the blunt assertion that the whole movement is "manufactured in the USA", which didn't really set the tone for a nuanced debate.
What I find odd about this whole discussion is that, back when Gay Girl In Damascus was generally being taken as a credible source, everyone seemed to find it quite plausible, and laudable, that a left-wing activist living in Syria would be involved in an Arab Spring uprising. Then, one guy makes a video saying that the Arab Spring is a CIA front, and gets instant credibility(at least in some circles). So, I'd say that progressives themselves seem to be a little confused as to what they think about the regimes in that part of the world.
People seem to have discovered ways of getting around that.
I haven't detected any confusion about the nature of the regimes there, or here for that matter. Would you care to point to a few examples?
I haven't detected any confusion about the nature of the regimes there, or here for that matter. Would you care to point to a few examples?
Well, like I said, people seemed to think it was laudable that a progressive(ie. the alleged blogger in Damascus) would join in a struggle against the Assad regime in Syria.
Then, people seemed ready to believe that the movement against Assad was orchestrated by the CIA. In which case, why were they so happy to cheer on the anti-Assad blogger when they thought she was real?
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that people are confused about the nature of the movements against the regime, rather than the regimes themselves.
I'm just gonna concede at this point. To be honest, I don't have any issues with anyone on this forum until I get insulted. I'm glad to debate as long we remain civil and not resort to insulting each others' intelligences.
The irony is getting deeper.
OK, try this: if someone uses terms such as "the dark races," "the turbanned horde," "the Yellow Peril," and "the mysterious Orient;" given the context in which these terms occur, about whom would you think the commentary is directed?
Well, I hope Fidel comes back. I'm not sure what happened between post #7 and post #54, but I think whatever it was will not overpower Fidel's love of babble. Fidel, I've always admired your enthusiasm for and dedication to babble, and I don't think that this disagreement should keep you from this place. polly bee, I'm not sure why you're leaving as well, but I hope it's temporary.
Again, accusations of a crackdown, stifling of dissent, state oppression, etc. are exaggerated to say the least. Here is, and has always been, my issue: conspiracy-like theories which hold that the CIA or some other American governmental organization exerts supernatural force over world events and deny agency to the countless disparate groups across North Africa and the Middle East runs counter to babble's anti-imperialist, and probably anti-racism policy. Both of the closed threads took this theory up with little (and dubious) proof. In fact, I cited 500_Apples's post in the first thread with admiration, as closer to the kind of discussion we should be having on babble. With that in mind, VOTD posts in this thread (as usual), particularly post #80, outline the situation clearly.
As for the two or three babblers who have left, I hope you take this all into perspective before you make your decision final.
@ Cathfire
As I said, moderating is hell, and that goes double for boards where respect for authority equals heresy.
And I think those who claim they want to leave should reconsider too, but I also think going cap in hand to flouncers is no different than feeding those who troll.
After all, what message does that send to those who play by the rules?
(edit)
And sorry, I don;t mean to imply that you are going cap-in-hand, and I appreciate that as a mod you are in a delicate position. I just don't have much tolerance for flouncing.
The original thread was closed because it was espousing ideas, without any valid proof, that the Arab Spring was a manipulation of Imperialist forces. Completely disavowing the incredible sacrifices of people who have protested, under threat of violent death, this conspiracy theory represents the kind of thought that can only be attributed to an arrogant cultural group that cannot conceive that people other than themselves can successfully revolt against their government.
That clear enough?
Although the titles of the threads closed may be enough to excuse moderator closure, the statement of allowable discussion goes well beyond any recapitulation of any babble "anti-imperialist" position.
It makes a political assessment of non-imperialism as an indisputable fact; a simplistic assessment of pro vs anti-regime change dynamics in situations which are far more complex than that of assumed progressive forces representing the so-called "arab spring".
Yes, to claim that the "arab spring" was invented by the CIA and does not have roots in popular uprising against tyranny is absurd--and demonstrably so.
But to suggest that the regime change forces in all these countries all represent progressive, anti-imperialist impulses is also absurd--and demonstrably so.
To say that the CIA and "imperialist manipulation" has little or no part in both the current pro and anti-regime change forces (depending on the state involved) is equally absurd--and demonstrably so.
The original thread title (as opposed to the actual posts within the thread itself) was written in absolute terms ("The USA Manufactured the Arab Spring") and it would be fair for someone to read that title and infer the following meaning: "The sole cause of the Arab Spring was meddling by the USA".
But was anyone asserting within the thread itself that indigenous and popular forces within the affected countries played no role in the Arab Spring?
I didn't read it that way.
I think these threads might have gotten off to a better start had the original title been something like "American influence in Arab Spring outcomes?". Which would have acknowledged the complexity of the social movements and the multiplicity of the players. Instead, we got the blunt assertion that the whole movement is "manufactured in the USA", which didn't really set the tone for a nuanced debate.
Exactly!!
@ Sven
Yes, but it is kind of hard to find that common ground when one is dealing with abolutist positions in the first place . If we are talking about the position of deomocracy not existing at all, or everytning being decided by the puppetmasters in the pentagon and CIA headquarters, I can see how there might be the need to draw a line.
The original thread title (as opposed to the actual posts within the thread itself) was written in absolute terms ("The USA Manufactured the Arab Spring") and it would be fair for someone to read that title and infer the following meaning: "The sole cause of the Arab Spring was meddling by the USA".
But was anyone asserting within the thread itself that indigenous and popular forces within the affected countries played no role in the Arab Spring?
I didn't read it that way.
I fully concede that my thread title was misleading and ignorant.
Moderators may change thread titles for any number of reasons, including but not limited to: errors in grammar or spelling; libel or slander; oppressive/offensive language; commercial or other kinds of spam; any other reason.
[counterflounce]
They are only conspiracy theories if you are able to show that the CIA has not orchestrated counterrevolution and overthrow of various countries' democratically elected leaders, and even abandoned US-backed dictatorships over the years to various popular people's rebellions.
They have. And the historical record of actual examples for it happening are many as Peter Cassidy pointed out at the expense of the shape of someone's cranium.
And in addition to CIA fomented counterrevolutions throughout the last century to this one, there have also been a number of U.S. sponsored "colour revolutions", from the former Yugoslavia to Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and so on. What your coincidence theory apologizing for U.S. imperialism lacks are explanations as to why dictators like Solobodan Milosevic through Robert Mugabe to Muammar Qaddafi were cooperating with the west in the 1990s forward with neoliberal economic reforms, and praised for it by U.S.-based financial institutions like the IMF, at the same time the U.S. Government and its "at arm's length NGOs" were supporting the political opposition in those countries same as is evident today in Egypt and Libya, Zimbabwe etc.
You can deny all of this and more by simply shutting down threads and threatening babblers with banning for attempting to discuss what U.S., Canadian and other countries' dissidents including those in John Foster Dulles' "Middle East" are saying about the "Arab Spring" today, but we all know that your overriding and beligerant opinions on the matter have nothing to do with nurturing free or open political discussion on babble. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite, and we resent this oppressive environment which you and by all appearances are directly responsible for having created.
Catchfire, your's is the same logic medieval inquisitions were designed around for several centuries. You can accuse us of being racist and imperialist for discussing the very realistic idea that actual racist imperialists are deeply involved in counterrevolutions and destabilizing the Middle East with the aim of expanding John Foster Dulles' "Middle East" beyond the "North Atlantic" Treaty Org's cold war boundaries into the heart of Asia and Africa. Because you've done so with impunity.
But babblers who recognize that they've been given the bum's rush and threatened with banning for expressing these unAmericanisms you are so intolerant of probably will not be babbling while you are calling the shots. And I think that if rabble's business people and publisher were smart, they would encourage the likes of you to be successful elsewhere.
Peace out.
counterflounce?
I love it. Let me pull on my dancing shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA
Not that I actually want you to fuck off, but the threat is kind of annoying, especially since I suspect you have no intention of going anywhere.
If anyone is implying that Catchfire should be fired; I encourage the likes of you to be successful elsewhere.
They are only conspiracy theories if you are able to show that the CIA has not orchestrated counterrevolution and overthrow of various countries' democratically elected leaders, and even abandoned US-backed dictatorships over the years to various popular people's rebellions.
More than orchestrating counterrevolutions and assassinations, CIA and MI6 are historically famous for manufacturing and propagating conspiracy theories about themselves in order to project an inflated view of their magnificance to the world - especially to the people oppressed under the dictatorships supported by them. What better method to discourage any potential freedom fighter in the Arab world by convincing him that all the popular uprisings he admired were nothing more than a complex plot carefully designed by the masters in London and Washington. (Kind of Matrix Reloaded story). Those who repeat such theories should also consider the reality that they are playing in CIA playground.
The Mossad is pretty good at creating that illusion as well, which is one reason The Angry Arab so gleefully points out how inept they are whenever he can.
For example:
On the dumb Mossad spy in Cairo (is there a Mossad agent who is not dumb)?Here is a take from someone who supposedly went to school with the guy.
http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/06/ex-classmate-of-accused-israeli-spy-ila...
The Mossad is pretty good at creating that illusion as well, which is one reason The Angry Arab so gleefully points out how inept they are whenever he can.
For example:
On the dumb Mossad spy in Cairo (is there a Mossad agent who is not dumb)?I am not convinced that Webster Tarpely is entirely disconnected from LaRouche. He still uses the bizarre frames of reference, language that he used when we was with LaRouche formally. I suspect/speculate he made a public break for various reasons of PR (LaRouche had to go to prison at around the time of the supposed break). He is definitely is a conspiracy theorist and he promotes an unhealthy approach.
I also, like 6079, doubt Fidel will stay away. I do not know him personally but I do know those who have met him and I strongly suspect he will return for many reasons.
And nothing to do with reality in fact. Confining ourselves to the present tense is evidence enough, let alone drudging up a history filled with corpses strewn about the planet. The CIA's drone program is currently assassinating entire families in Pakistan, and here we're being treated to yarn about policy implications as they pertain to a discussion of their denial of agency. It beggars belief when everyday reality and supernatural forces are fuzed together and given the same standing. It just doesn't make sense.
Fidel, my brother, don't let these mods take you down. Do your thing. I probly wouldn't even be into the NDP if not for your constant reminders. I understand why they closed the thread (although not sure why they didn't just change the title).
In solidarity.
Hey no NDP. We're having a rare moment.
And nothing to do with reality in fact. Confining ourselves to the present tense is evidence enough, let alone drudging up a history filled with corpses strewn about the planet. The CIA's drone program is currently assassinating entire families in Pakistan, and here we're being treated to yarn about policy implications as they pertain to a discussion of their denial of agency. It beggars belief when everyday reality and supernatural forces are fuzed together and given the same standing. It just doesn't make sense.
I can forgive them the "supernatural" slur after listening to a few of Webster Tarpley's interviews. I think he's equal parts correct and totally-out-there, in terms of evidence he provides ("Assange is a CIA op because he is tied to Google which was funed by a Soros front org" kind of dealio).
However unfortunate it was that Fidel chose to highlight Tarpley's research, there are still other claims that haven't been refuted. Al Jazeera has video confession of the April 6 leaders' connection to Otpor. Otpor has recorded confession of their involvement with Freedom House, NED, CANVAS, ICNC, all CIA front groups. I feel that these were merely glossed over by the moderators. I just don't see how this constitutes non-evidence.
Dont worry, I can say its impossible that Fidel could stay away from here for even a day
[and the whiskey induced final cut]
And if there is to be any genuine apologies extended here, I should thank the real Americans who have so generously provided us with their comments and opinons over the years. Former Soldier is a real American I believe and a virtual online someone who gives it his heart and soul in every post he contributes.
And Sven, God love him to bits. He's a real American, too. He has tried so hard to reconcile our points of view with what he knows and understands about his country and our's and all of the wonderful people who live state side and here in the semi-frozen banana rep. due north. Thanks, Sven. You're the real deal, too. Sven realized his heart is located on this side of his chest after swallowing the red pill years ago. No turning back, Sven.
Yes we love our American neighbors and relatives who live there, and we real people want what's best for both countries and the wonderful people who try so hard to make it work every day in spite of the scumbags in high places taking advantage of the situation. They defined themselves by their wealth and are loyal to no country. Charade they are.
Peace out for the very last time, friends. Cheerio, and ... Give 'er!
Fidel, take a break from babble. It'll do you good...like a long-missed vacation. Then, come back, refreshed and ready to go again.
Before I close this thread for length, I'd like to say a few things ...
Publicly discussing babblers who have been banned is inappropriate and unfair since they cannot respond to anything said of them.
Threatening a campaign to have us (the mods) terminated from our employment is a most odious form of workplace oppression and creates a toxic environment for us. Disagree with our decisions all you like, as is your right, but don't personally insult us or threaten our livelihoods or you will be shown the door.
Everyone is someone else's jerk/hero at some time. The decision to ban long-time babblers is never taken lightly, and is only done when the damage an individual does to the discourse and to other individuals outweighs the value of their contribution. I can't count the number of intelligent, reasonable babblers who have left (quietly, mind you, without drama) because of the offensive behaviour of others.
And now, this imperialist oppressor of the heroic voices of freedom on babble is closing the thread.