Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Serj Tankian

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
wrestlingcasa.tripod.com...

Serj Tankian is the lead singer for the band System Of A Down, and he is STRONGLY anti-war, as am I.

Anyways, I completely agree with this essay by him, as it is a point of view seldom spoken.

What are your thoughts?




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The thing with SOD is people always misread their messages and lyrics.
But they always seem to be dead on in their presentation and energy.


SERJ is acting like a true human being and american.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Serj musical wise is a the messiah and he is a strong activist for the recinition of the arminein genocide and hasbeen to many rallies with the rest of soad


Sure hell, look at my avatar thats him , soad are my fav band

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Marto_Bagg]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Yeah, I love SOAD, and thats how I found that.

It's a perspective that is rarely voiced and I am in agreeance with it.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

wrestlingcasa.tripod.com...
The U.S. should stop sidestepping the U.N. Security Council, and allow U.N. Peacekeeping troops and missions to the Middle East. Stop the violence first.


He seems to essentially agree with the Bush Doctrine then, that military force and regime change have to be used to re-organize the middle east into a new order. He thinks the UN should do it, however, the UN has no interest or ability to do it, so the US will.


Stop the bombing and patrol of Iraq.

Here he is talking about the patrols that were put in place, after iraq invaded kuwait in order to get control of its oil fields, and after the saddam government commited a near genocide of the marsh arabs and other resistors.
So, no, there was no reason to stop patroling iraq, and the fact that he is pressuring for that to happen, along with countries like Russia pressuring to let up the embargo, illustrate why it was necessary for the US to invade Iraq, if it didn't, the Hussein regime would be relieved of pressure, start getting more money, and put that money into the 'hiberating' WMD programmes that we now know they had.


With todays gains in the use of alternative fuels, develop them to full usage with autos

There is no reason to not do this, but its not a foreign policy.


By initiating peace, we would have already shaken the foundations of support for Bin Laden

This is incorrect. It was peace that directly lead to the sitaution that most enraged bin ladin, it was the pressence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Saudi governmnet, and for the defence of the arabian penninsula from the invading iraqis, that set him off. The UN style peace-keeping missions alluded to above would've fuelled terrorism just as much as the US pressence.


and break the stronghold of extremists on the world of Islam

This is incorrect. Extremist islam exists independantly of war, and at the begining, when the middle east was very uneasy, it was national-socialist political movements that were fueling the fire for terrorism and war, Fatah and the Baath Party are relatively secular institutions. Islamist movements do not dissapear merely because there is peace. The taliban took advantage of the disorder in afghanistan to come to power, once there was peace, they didn't 'loose popular support'.

if we carry out bombings [...]and very likely kill innocent civilians along the way, wed be creating many more martyrs

And for every nazi soldier that the US shot dead there were three more enlisting. Eventually, the demographics of the situation took over and their warfighting ability peetered out.


As shown from yesterdays events, you cannot stop a person whos ready to die.

Yes you can, you just kill them before they get to kill you. If the US had been more aggressive in the middle east from the start, there'd've never been a 911. If the US had responded to the bombing of the african embassies with a 'war on terrorism', there'd be no states today supporting internationalist terrorism, or any organizations capable of mounting an attack like 911.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
He seems to essentially agree with the Bush Doctrine then, that military force and regime change have to be used to re-organize the middle east into a new order. He thinks the UN should do it, however, the UN has no interest or ability to do it, so the US will.


No, Nygdan, the essay does not say this. Can you quote exactly where he says the UN is uninterested therefore the US should take up the baton by itself?


...if it didn't, the Hussein regime would be relieved of pressure, start getting more money, and put that money into the 'hiberating' WMD programmes that we now know they had.

You must know something the rest of us don't. What Iraqi WMD was that again?


There is no reason to not do this, but its not a foreign policy.

Why isn't it? Something to do with dominating resource supplies perhaps?


...you just kill them before they get to kill you. If the US had been more aggressive in the middle east from the start, there'd've never been a 911.

Or it may have happened a lot sooner. Are you suggesting the US knew who the 9/11 attackers were before they struck? This aggression you speak of does not solve problems, it prolongs them into the next generation.

What do you want, a world that cowers before the West in exchange for access to it's own resources? It's not going to happen. The entire world will not accept one rampant militarised superpower and its satellite supporters. It will object by force, no matter the merits or failings of its alternate positions. The world must learn to share wealth, not aggrandise it.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   



He seems to essentially agree with the Bush Doctrine then, that military force and regime change have to be used to re-organize the middle east into a new order. He thinks the UN should do it, however, the UN has no interest or ability to do it, so the US will.


Stop the bombing and patrol of Iraq.



I have to say NYGDAN that's not what what he is saying. "This kill them before they kill you" rhetoric does not work. Look in India your world view is crumbling before because of these policies you wish to enforce around the world. Cowboy Diplomacy only works in Hollywood. And you either learn sooner or later.

Osama's gameplan is to get you to react impatiently and kill arabs. That's in his manifesto. He wants to draw out your anger and manipulate you with it. And so far his gameplan is running like clockwork. You killed some people and? You helped create multiple factions based in hatred for destroying their comrades in arms. Not an accomplishment to gloat or even make a talking point. Osama says it in his interviews over and over what his plan of strategy is. He's like the Joker in batman. He can't shut up but the U.s. is too stupid or too greedy to notice in the war on terror business. But it works. What makes you different than Russia in Afghanistan? Nothing


There is a flaw in your logic because you assume there is a end game to terrorism. When really all you are doing is giving P.R. to them. Because you basically are endorsing the policy of world police whether you want to or not. And these extreme islamists or fundamentalists are laughing in glee and hysteria you want to continue to have a presence in their nations of dominance. And do you really think that it will work to say


This is close to the borderline of silly. "You kill them before they kill you" That's your gameplan? You are giving Bin laden waht he wants a ratchet of paranoia of fear and anger against the U.S. Your strategy has too many holes in it. Sooner or later you are going to have to come to the realization Terrorism is a part of life for everyone. And you can either become what Terrorists want you to become or you can stand your ground and american principles. Rendition is not american principle.


There never would be a 911 if we didn't continue to build a military presence for corporate interests in their countries. There would be little outrage for us and the Arab Extremists would find something else to rail against for their oppression. Can you imagine the outrage people would have if Saudi?Iraqi/CHina Military had several airbases in Washington D.C>? Exactly... It's hypocrisy in it's highest we as a country not let others have airbases and military installations. But thats because it's Do as I say not Do as I do.

I really find it astounding this logic of kill them before they kill you.
Who is "THEM" and how do you define "them" and why is it okay that the arabs do not defend themselves against a occupying force? When you yourself would do the same thing, NYGDAN as any of would. So it's really just bizarre to me why you can't see people are resistant of imperial western ideals to their families and friends. That's why we will never win. Hypocrisy does not win hearts and minds,period


I just have to say we have no right to lecture a nation on truth and freedom. Our freedoms are being endangered every day with the rogue govt mentality. We need therapy ourselves as a nation and we have no room to talk as usual.
We are that blustering caustic fat man who tells his wife she needs to lose weight or he's leaving her. That's the United States of America in 2006 like it or not.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soulstice
Can you quote exactly where he says the UN is uninterested therefore the US should take up the baton by itself?

I didn't state that. He called for the UN to get involved, explicitly recognizing the use of force in such situations. THis is practically an implicit endoresement of US global hegemony, considering that the UN is incapable of doing what he is saying is necessary.


What Iraqi WMD was that again?

Please pay more attention to what I am saying. I said that hussein would reactivate the dormant programmes. After the war, it was learned that hussein's weapons programme was dormant, not dismantled. He was even hiding chemical manufacturing plants from the UN inspectors. And we've found large numbers of old chemical munitions, they were claimed to have been destroyed also and couldn't be found by the inspectors. The US and the rest of the world was wrong on the issue of iraq having chemical weapons at the ready, it was right on them being a chemical weapons threat.


Why isn't it?

I don't know why you'd think that supporting alternative energy research is an answer to pressing foreign policy concerns. Its a good idea, but, again, its not a foreign policy.



Or [911] may have happened a lot sooner.
[my edit]
Or maybe it'd've never happened, since it was a complex operation that required massive financial support, training camps, coordinating committees, and even the sheltering protection of a state like taliban occupied afghanistan. If the US had acted to smash up the al-qaida terror network, and prevented an organization like the taliban from coming to power in afghanistan, there'd be no one to make the attack. Any organization of that size and sophistication will allways be open to attack, especially when there aren't any states like iraq, taliban afghanistan, iran, or north korean, to protect, nuture, and enable them.


this aggression you speak of does not solve problems

That is fundamentally false. The only time agression doesn't work is when it is hindered and inadequately applied.

What do you want, a world that cowers before the West in exchange for access to it's own resources?

How about a world that isn't stupid enough to kill nearly 3,000 american civilians and think that there won't be a global occupation in retaliation?

The entire world will not accept one rampant militarised superpower and its satellite supporters.

What the heck makes you think that? The 'world', as in 'not the us and its 'satellites', has a long history of loving dicatorships and being strongarmed and having to kowtow. Its not necessary for the US to create something liek that, but the world sure as hell would accept it.


mrgerbik
Osama's gameplan is to get you to react impatiently and kill arabs.

I am well aware of this. His plan is to create a chaotic world state in which he and his cronies can come to power, in their own region if they can't expand it.
So what? Its a bad plan, its not going to work. The US is going to re-organize the middle east into a new order, not merely attack, stir up a 'hornets nest' and then run away. The US is still occupying japan and germany, that war ended conclusively over 50 years ago! 50 years is a lot of middle east generations. DO you really think that the grandkids of the people in iraq now are going to be bothering to strap on suicide belts? To fight a benign moderately representative native government? Out of some silly fear of 'global US hegemony'???? Of course not, they're going to get on with their lives, and look at any local terror groups that pop up as criminals that should be destroyed.

What makes you different than Russia in Afghanistan?

The only reason the mujahideners won in afghanistan is because the US was funding them and giving them shoulder fired missiles to destroy the soviet helicopters. The Russian-Afghan War was a war within the Cold War, they were fighting against the US, not afghans and migrant arabs.

There never would be a 911 if we didn't continue to build a military presence for corporate interests in their countries.

And that is why the US has to continue on the path its on now. So long as their is american influence, there will be anti-american organizations. The US can't withdraw from the world, its not physically capable of doing that, so there's allways going to be a threat from 911 type attacks, unless the US destroys the states that enable groups like al-qaida, and seeks out and kills people that support groups like al-qaida.

I really find it astounding this logic of kill them before they kill you.

Its worked throughout history and there's nothing that indicates it magically doesn't work today. The only times agression hasn't worked out has been where the agressor threw its hands up and gave in.

Who is "THEM" and how do you define "them"

'They" are the ones organizing and agitating to kill us.

and why is it okay that the arabs do not defend themselves against a occupying force?

The arabs aren't 'them'. And terrorists are welcome to try to attack the US, indeed, its their right, just as its the right of the US to go after them and kill them. The difference is, its stupid to attack the US, which is far more powerful than any state on the planet, let alone any terorrist organization. Lots of countries are able to effectively 'stand up to' the US and its 'hegemony', like France, Germany, Russia, China, etc, without doing something as utterly stupid as killing nearly 3,000 Americans. Violence isn't an effective measure against someone that is stronger than you.

When you yourself would do the same thing, NYGDAN as any of would.

So why the hell does Mr. Tanakian think that the US has no right to go out and use violence against those that it deems are its enemies? The use of force is perfectly legitimate on the international level, they can use it, and we can use it. The difference is, we can actually use it to effect.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BCBLOOD
What are your thoughts?


I've got a thought... does anyone wanna guess what the LAST THING on my mind was while I was hanging out at Ozzfest Saturday night?

And does anybody wanna guess who decided to stop singing (when he was doing a REALLY good job by the way) and talk about something that I find kind of depressing instead?

It wasn't completely without class, I wasn't offended really, no big deal, I'm not sorry I went, I still like SOAD... but if I had the chance to talk to Serj about it, I'd ask him to save it for the very end of the show, because when I'm having a good time, revisiting my memories of the Marine Corps and going into political mode just really isn't what I want to do with my time.

I'm glad he wrote the essay though. That's a WAY better forum than Ozzfest for politics. There's enough to fight about there without politics coming up.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I was at an ozzfest a while ago, even black sabbath mixed in a political message with the concert, though they didn't stop to give a speech.

Why do rock stars and actors think anyone cares about their political ideas anyway? Yeesh.


edit to add
Especially this guy, all he's done is to say 'we shouldn't fight the people that attacked us, because violence is bad'. Not exactly an uncommon or especially helpful sentiment. I mean, in some cases, like Greg Gaffin of Bad Religion, yeah you can disagree with his politcs, but at least he makes sense and has somethign worthwhile to say, other than 'don't be mean to the people that kill and threaten you'.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why do rock stars and actors think anyone cares about their political ideas anyway? Yeesh.



I think it is one of two things...

1. They choose to use their "influence" to try to change the world in a good way...
2. They do these things to further their own self, ie. getting more attention towards a new movie, album, etc...

I think Serj has good intentions, along with the likes of Bono, Zach de la Roca and others that are actually in it for reason 1....

Tom Cruise, Toby Keith, Alan Jackson, or any other country star that capitalizes on the events of 9/11 and other political/religous agendas, in my opinion, are definately in it for reason 2.....It's good PR to use such a devastating event to rally your troops (fans)...album sales will increase ten fold.....


Especially this guy, all he's done is to say 'we shouldn't fight the people that attacked us, because violence is bad'. Not exactly an uncommon or especially helpful sentiment. I mean, in some cases, like Greg Gaffin of Bad Religion, yeah you can disagree with his politcs, but at least he makes sense and has somethign worthwhile to say, other than 'don't be mean to the people that kill and threaten you'.


I agree in a sense, that standing up for yourself is a good thing....I do not, however, agree that we have handled all this correctly either...as I'm sure you probably don't either....not trying to put words into your mouth or anything..

I personally feel that what Serj is doing is a good thing. What true foreign threat do we have in the US right now? It is those who come into this country that can harm us...not some country overseas. Violence IS bad. Let's worry about our own homeland and it's own inhabitants before we start patrolling the streets of every other place in the world. What better way of preventing terrorism than starting at home? We have people falling vicitim to crime and poverty every day. We don't we try to help our own? Poverty leads to crime, disease, and is a strain on the economy. Fix poverty, and you have a domino effect.

No, I'm not saying that we pry into people's lives, but I think right now, there is a growing anger in our country that is going to lead to more and more home grown terrorism.

Why do we have to patrol the globe? Why are we so afraid? Why are we in the right, and anyone who opposes us in the wrong? Why can we have missles and tell other countries they can't?

Do you sleep better at night knowing we are fighting a war that we are losing? For every Iraqi we kill, another Iranian, North Korean, or any number of Muslim populated countries just hates us more and more. Not because of a dead Iraqi, but because they are afraid they will be next. To me, we are increasing the threat of another terrorist attack on our own soil.

We are trapped in an endless cycle of violence.....without some form of peace somewhere, that fact will never change....



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I completely agree that Serj is just trying to use his success for a greater good than his own and that his intentions are totally benign. That's the great thing about pacifists- they rarely have evil master plans.

My one and only problem is the failure on his part to realize that his shows are, in a manner of speaking, business transactions between his band and the fans. It would be totally inappropriate for the guy at the drive thru to take my money, then before giving me my fries, give a speech about the war in Iraq. I paid him for some fries because in all likelihood, I really wanted to eat some fries; a speech is not fries. Nor is a speech a show/music.


I also think it's very ironic that you would only give the benefit of the doubt to those who agree with you. Nobody listens to Toby Kieth because he's behind the troops. My grandma is behind the troops and on top of that I love her, but both of those things put together still couldn't make me listen to her singing.

Toby Kieth, like Serj, has a point of view he wishes to express. Now I've never been to one of his shows and I don't know if he gives speeches. I think its safe to assume he has at some point and if thats correct he's wrong. HOWEVER he has also found a way of voicing his views that I think Serj, Bruce Springstein, et al need to consider following.

Toby Kieth goes to a venue appropriate to his views and puts on a free show for the benefit of those views. Namely he goes to Iraq by the way, which is why I question the idea that its a PR stunt. A guy only needs so much money... at some point you become rich enough that a PR stunt that involves making yourself a high-visibility, high-propaganda-value target in the worlds #1 warzone would just seem not to be worthwhile.






top topics



 
0

log in

join