a hundred Mogadishus

According to WorldNetDaily.com, "A University of California at Berkeley lecturer speaking at an anti-war rally Saturday called for a Palestinian-style intifada, or uprising, against the United States in response to American actions in the Middle East."

The "intifada" is the violent Palestinian uprising that has resulted in hundreds of deaths in Israel. So this U.C. Berkeley professor -- Hatem A. Bazian, a native Palestinian -- says that "it's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here." (See an amateur video of the speech here: /2zmxv -- warning, the .avi file is over 12 mb.)

In other words, according to Prof. Bazian, it's about time that we have a violent uprising of terrorist organizations in America that will result in hundreds of deaths of American citizens.

This isn't the same guy who called for a hundred Moghadishus, but it is from the same University...Might explain why California seems to be trying to give illegal aliens legal status...


[Edited on 4-14-2004 by junglejake]

Although I don't like the violence, I think a civil war is almost what we need.

The American people need to take their country back from the government. Way too much power is in the government, and that needs to be reversed.

Whether that be through civil war or through a President that is there for the people, it needs to happen. If not, I see a sad and scary future for this country of ours.

Wow! Thought this thread was dead before it even began to live!

As far as a civil war here in the country...I don't think we do need one.

I agree the government has gotten it's mitts into way too much of our lives, but this can be reversed through the election process. We can elect senators, congressmen, and presidents who work against this.

The problem as I see it is the vast majority of the American population don't educate themselves on the candidates. They just say "I'm a republican" or "I'm a democrat" without knowing really what they're supporting. Take Chicago, for example. One of the most conservative cities in the nation -- always votes democrat. There's a special term for us here: Chicago Democrat. The rest of the nation reads that as republican who votes against their party.

Our nation does need a revolution. We need an informational revolution. I don't know how we could do it, though. Maybe if we took the worthless box at the tops of ballots that says "All Republican" and "All Democrat" and put 2 or 3 of each candidates strongest points (chosen by them, stated as fact:I will lower taxes, not Unlike XXXX I will lower taxes) it would make people see what they're voting for.

If we had this revolution, where it wasn't which candidate had the best sound byte, but which candidate had the best platform, this nation would get to where it needs to be.

How about this, I don't care where he teaches, send him back the hell he thinks the US should be turned into and he can go blow himself up with the rest of thee crazies.

But wouldn't that be violating the first ammendment, JOHNSmith? How could you justify doing that legally?

I agree with you junglejake on that we need an revolution. It seems though that each time something is tried, it's turned down. Remember MoveOn.org and how CBS I think it was turned them down when it came to playing their ad against Bush. We need someone in high power that actually cares. Bush though was smart about this and appealed to those in high powers. Anyone who has any money that could help loves Bush because of what he's done for the rich.

This isn't wholly a Bush thing; this is a government thing. Bush though has definately helped the 'government-power' cause.

If I may, America is full of lazy people. They don't want to be educated. They want to be American. That means they want to watch CNN for a couple of minutes, pick who they think sounds best, and go vote for him.

What we need is a President who is for the people. Someone who understands the bull# of politics and is there to give more power back to the people.

I'm not positive in this, but doesn't it say in the Constitution that if the people felt that the government was leading them wrong, they have a right to completely rebuild it?

I agree with you to a degree dz, but I put the blame elsewhere. I put it with the media. The media is more interested in making a quick buck and airing a catch phrase rather then air something accurate.

And our government was designed to be overthrown, so to speak. It can happen every 2 years, and often does, when one party gets into office over another.

I agree that most Americans are lazy. Our land is so incredibly rich, and we don't even realize it. I remember back in my uneducated highschool days, I was driving behind someone whose speed was varying between 65 and 70. I got pissed, wondering why the heck he didn't turn on cruise control. Then I moved away from home, and realized...cruise control isn't typical (7 years ago). I think Americans are largely the same way. I'm fairly open to new ideas, but if I don't know the idea even exists, how can I get there. We look at countries like south africa, Ughanda, Somalia, and think, well, just go vote, because that's all we've known. And we also assume that as long as we pick a candidate our party tells us to pick, things will work out. And they usually do. The two parties, dems and reps, are largely the same. We elect a middle of the road president with this title or that, and then are shocked when things don't get better, but feel good when they don't get worse.

We need to make a concerted effort in this country to not only make political debates less taboo, but to force it on people. We run our country, let's start looking into how to do that outside of soundbites.

I work valet and I was taking a car down the other day when someone had NPR on. They were doing an interview with this lady (sorry for lack of details, i didn't get to hear much), but she said that her country has only been able to vote for the past 6 years or so. They talked about how in that country, a 80% turnout for voting was a low number. In America, it was something like a 50% turnout that was good?

We take much for granted. I agree with you that we need some sort of way to get information out to a lot of people, but keep it simple and to the point. We need to make people actually think about who they are voting for, and not just do it cause someone told them.

And I do agree with you about the media. The media has been doing that for a long time though. I just had a class on Theories of Communication, and one of the things we discussed is the media and how it controls people and continuously monitors us to see what we like/don't like. The majority though I think doesn't care. They don't care that CNN is all propoganda, and they think that if they were to believe that, they'd be labeled as wacko's. They just take it in and accept it. It's sad.

They're all propoganda. I get my news from CNN, FoxNews, NPR, WLS (conservative talk radio in Chicago), a french news paper, a chinese newspaper (sorry all these links are at work, don't have em at home) Al Jazeera, a Brittish newspaper, and a South African newspaper. Those are the regular references, then there's those that people post here, that I check out, too. But I'm a news buff. Many people aren't like that, but it does take a lot of time up researching all the slants on a story so you can form your own opinion. I'm not sure what a solution would be...

well quite frankly I think it's disgusting that someone who is supposed to have the best interest of his students in mind is attempting to incite Palestine style violence. If some one else here has a problem with that you can voice to it the Vp of UC Berkley at:

[email protected]
Address it to Paul R. Gray

The UC Berkley employee was giving that speech is: Hatem Bazian

What about a website that gets articles from CNN/Other News Networks, and then does reviews on them. Shows the slants and gives the facts.

I'd be interested in creating such. I've programmed since I was 8, and am 21, so it'd be a very easy task.

Only thing is we'd need reporters that would actually be willing to do the work.

Originally posted by dz
What about a website that gets articles from CNN/Other News Networks, and then does reviews on them. Shows the slants and gives the facts.

If you were able to create a program that deconstructed the news taking out all the opinion, personal views etc.. and than reconstruct it in a deductive boolean logic format listing the premises and the conclusion than a logical analysis of the validity of the argument and if flawed list the type of flaw (red haring) etc.. I would not only host it I'd make all the graphics for it.

On a side note, another project I'm working on is using a voice stress analysis tester on politicians who talk on TV, unfortunately when bush speaks publicly he either avoids the type of questions that can be tested or they use some sort of filter that makes a voice stress test unusable with the audio. I think that would be a cool edition to a site that breaks the news down into logical format.

I would actually like to point out that some of our ATSNN staffers are really good at doing this. You can read a Banshee thread, and not know where she stands. ATSNN needs to be on TV...

The only problem with the whole "100 Mogadishus" thing is that this action would require an American President to hold office, who will not send reinforcements into a selected area.

The more emboldened these guys get, the more troops we're going to ship over there.

They WILL be defeated.

Originally posted by kramtronix
The only problem with the whole "100 Mogadishus" thing is that this action would require an American President to hold office, who will not send reinforcements into a selected area.

The more emboldened these guys get, the more troops we're going to ship over there.

They WILL be defeated.

So do you think it'd be best to just end this war now, before more get killed? Or do you think it'd be best to not let our soldiers who have died die for nothing and finish what we've done?

The last thing we need is an armed revolution.

You think things will be all hunky-dory if we have an armed conflict? No, it will be the self-styled generals with the fanatical armies who will be in power. Joe Citizen isn't going to be willing to grab a rifle and fight. He isn't evne motivated to go out and vote once every 4 years, eh sure as hell isn't going to die in the mud. It's going to be crackpots with delusions of grandeur who finally make them a reality.

No, the tools are in place for us to have a political revolution, as JJ said. We just need to get off our asses and do something about it.

Originally posted by Esoterica
oe Citizen isn't going to be willing to grab a rifle and fight. He isn't evne motivated to go out and vote once every 4 years, eh sure as hell isn't going to die in the mud.

We just need to get off our asses and do something about it.

Yup, we have food, water, power (electricity), computers, grocery stores, Walmart, jobs (those without get money) and most of all we are comfortable. What would we go out and blow our selves up for exactly? When you have all those combined with a sense of freedom and security why on earth would we go out and fight? The people who fight the hardest are the people without the things I mentioned above, oh yeah and the religious fanatics.

What exactly would we need to get off our ass to do?

Originally posted by dz

So do you think it'd be best to just end this war now, before more get killed? Or do you think it'd be best to not let our soldiers who have died die for nothing and finish what we've done?

Ending now is not an option.