Osama Bin Laden Killed

[OscarGuy]

Closing thread due to massive diversion from topic.

[taki15]

Can someone please lock this trainwreck of a thread?

[Sonic Youth]

Thank you. She is. She just called and told me she loved me. Our unsatisfactory marriage lives to see at least one more day.

Out of respect for the board, I'll put you on IGNORE now. I got what I wanted out of you anyway. You were my crying little bitch for 30 minutes, and now you're gone.

[Sonic Youth]

Oh, stop waving your clitdick around, you gawker.com footnote, and do something constructive so that your heartbroken father will stop reciting the Sai Amrit Vani on your behalf.

[Sonic Youth]

Fortunately as Italiano pointed out Sonic Youth, you were always an idiot. It's just out in the open now.

Also -- if this doesn't get deleted, which it likely will -- don't fool yourself. Lots of posters were PMing each other (and me, and the other "me", and OK, the other "me" too) and laughing at you and your manifest insecurities behind your back.

Wha? Wait, that was YOU Akash?! My word...

It must be you. If I had a nickle for every time you said "People were talking about you behind your back" I'd be able to pay for that Ivy League education you're never going to have.

[Mister Tee]

The question is: was the majority of America against the Iraqi war or not?

I don't know. Polls taken at the time would seem to indicate that the majority of Americans supported the war, but among my friends and acquaintances the opposite was true. However, once it became clear that the country was duped into believing that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, most opinions changed.

I wasn't going to return to this thread, but since such an issue is being made, my recollection:

In the run-up to the war, pollsters had a very tough time showing majority American support for it (much as they tried). As I recall, the only way they could get it (barely) over 50% approval was to stipulate it would be over in a few weeks and yield fewer than 100 American casualties.

Meantime, the opposition was loud and widespread. This may not have been apparent just from media coverage, given that the networks were fully in lock-step with the Bush administration's goals. But there were massive protest marches, all over the US as well as abroad -- bigger than anyone had seen since the Vietnam years.

Nevertheless, Bush & Co. wanted their war, and they plowed ahead heedless. Once the engagement was underway, Americans in polling did what they (and those in most countries) do in such situations: they switched to nominal support in the name of the troops committed to the battlefield. You can argue that this is part of the problem -- that people against policy should rage-rage 24/7 -- but that's not human nature.

This support spiked some when things appeared to have ended and gone well (though never reaching the euphoria numbers the first Gulf War had). But that was short-lived. Within a very few months, it became apparent there were going to be more casualties "post-war" than there had during official hostilities. And the public proved true to its initial word; as soon as casualty figures started creeping over 100, approval dropped below 50%, and kept dropping month/year by month/year, ultimately ranking as one of the least popular foreign policy decisions in the nation's history.

So, it's not a simple matter of saying "Did the majority of Americans support it?", and drawing overbroad conclusions from that.

[Sonic Youth]

In other news, that MLK quotation I made is false.

MLK did however advocate [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=errxX4 ... dy+devoid+













of+stars.&hl=en&ei=EVO_TaDYF4_egQfPnui9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]loving thine enemy. [/url]

Amazing, that America can have in MLK and the Civil Rights Movement an inspirational and triumphant example of non-violence solving a great injustice, and still choose to solve all its current problems with violence. And most Americans cheers it on. The three dissenters in this thread are correct: that is myopic! That Obama (a murderer and a war criminal) could only become President as a result of King's legacy, is all the more ironic and sad. And a desecration of that legacy.

Oh, you don't know the half. We used to have a poster here called Ahash, who on the one hand who had a distaste for the sort of moderate stances that Obama would claim during the campaign, but threw all that aside and became a staunch Obama supporter. Despite his outgoing front, he was one of those very insecure people who created alter egos on this board to back him up (pretty hilarious when you think about it, creating manchurian identities to support someone accused of being a manchurian candidate), most notortious among them was Steph, a white college age female who would suggest there was a racist element underlying any valid political criticism. Anyway, I mention this because one of my biggest concerns was Obama vowing to refocus the so-called "War on Terrorism" towards Pakistan and increasing drone attacks, which he did. It was that very issue that made me turn on him completely. When I brought it up, fake-Steph said something like "Oh, there's his latest issue against Obama." I said I first mentioned months ago. His/her response "I take that back. I meant, it's your lamest issue." That's the sort of witticism he was capable of, and it's one reason why he had trouble staying in school and maintaining interpersonal relationships, but that's a whole other issue. The main point is, a) I was right, and despite the capture of Obama he still has many dead, innocent Pakistanis to his name; and b) progressives (of the second-hand, boutique type) like Akash were willing to forgo their usual political and moral standards to see an Establishment political figure take office because it would make them feel good to see a black man be Commander-in-Chief regardless of his un-prog politics and viewpoint.

It's interesting, now that it's been brought up, to consider the race issue regarding the former poster Akash. He was a brown Indian, but one who clearly hated being brown or was at least ashamed of it. He was an extremely insecure person in general, and had not only the tendency, but the insatiable desire to want to appear among the superior classes while all the while denigrating his superiority. He was Indian, which is a country with a huge underclass. I believe he claimed his parents were doctors. He claimed to be pretty upper-class, went to an Ivy League school and was an aspiring upwardly-mobile journalist. One of his fake identities was white, interestingly enough (you could write two journals on THIS angle), also from a very wealthy family (which she often denigrated), lived in Connecticut, studied in France and so on. In other words, this poster and his personalities wanted to signal their superiority by giving the impression that they were from an upper-middle class household. It was an interesting balancing act to watch. They used their superior position in their American caste system to give themselves in general and their opinions in particular a strong credibility, almost monarchical. But they were leftist radicals (in all but their choice in presidential candidate) so they denigrated the capitalist system and anyone who gave an inkling of supporting it, while at the same time they were also the beneficiary of it. And not only that, this poster and his personalities often EMPHASIZED their high-elite position, as member of society and therefore as a person in general.

And so, it makes sense that an exceptionally sensitive and insecure brown Indian like Akash would invent a white person as his proxy personality. There are racial dynamics everywhere, including India, and someone from India would know very well that lighter skin is more appreciated than darker skin; there is a prejudice over there (in southern states like Tamil Nadu you can definitely see it, when you see who it is that pumps the gas and stocks the supermarket shelves). Clearly Akash was affected by this, because while he was bemoaning racism towards Obama, he emphasized a light complexion, ie through a fictional poster. He may as well gotten his skin bleached. There's more to it than that, of course. This was someone who had a psychological drive to be King of the Message Board around here, and when that wasn't working - especially with me (he pulled the wool over some people's eyes; I saw through it from the beginning, especially when he tried to PM me badmouthing other posters) - he created a rich WHITE person to help climb the ethno-racial ladder, effectively disposing of his (real) brown family who due to their skin color were bringing his status down. I can only imagine how much psychological damage one has to live with in order to effectively throw off your brown skin and play White Superman in order to attain respect.

Anyway, you being new, I'm sure this isn't very interesting to you. The point is, it was only natural that this person should have made Obama his personal mission. Both were born with disadvantages, and both tried to overcome it. And I don't begrudge anyone who supported Obama due to personally identifying with him. Of course there's a difference between the two. Akash's purpose in life was to advertize his superiority to most everyone else, so much so that he had to lie to attain superiority. For Obama, fabricating his life was unnecessary. Obama then went on to be president. Akash managed to get himself thrown out of two (and maybe three) schools and get arrested because he fabricated in life, both in the virtual and the real world. I can only imagine the shame his family is facing, bringing up a promising young son only to end up not only a failure but ashamed of his own family and skin color as well.

But that's in the past. Welcome aboard, Starkid!



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1304449814

[Big Magilla]

The question is: was the majority of America against the Iraqi war or not?

I don't know. Polls taken at the time would seem to indicate that the majority of Americans supported the war, but among my friends and acquaintances the opposite was true. However, once it became clear that the country was duped into believing that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, most opinions changed.

[Sabin]

(ITALIANO @ May 03 2011,12:42)

(ITALIANO @ May 03 2011,12:55)

Well, no, sorry - the majority of Americans was completely indifferent if not supportive of the war, and this is a fact.

The question is: was the majority of America against the Iraqi war or not? I mean, why this strategy of always making jokes? I don't understand it.

Nope.

I'm not continuing this thread of conversation. It is so off-course, it can die.

[ITALIANO]

(ITALIANO @ May 03 2011,12:55)

(Sabin @ May 02 2011,6:37)

(ITALIANO @ May 02 2011,6:07) I did. And so did countless friends of mine. There were scores of protests of the past decade, Marco. A lot of them didn't make the news. Not fair.

Well, no, sorry - the majority of Americans was completely indifferent if not supportive of the war, and this is a fact.

And the very fact that you think that only Fox or assholes should wonder about the corpse, Sabin... well, let's just say that joy made you blind, too.

A) No, we didn't overthrow the country. You got me there.

Jokes again?

It's not a question of overthrowing the country - though honestly would this be a sacrilege to you? Countries can and have been overthrown, you know.

The question is: was the majority of America against the Iraqi war or not? I mean, why this strategy of always making jokes? I don't understand it.

Ah, and please NOT ANOTHER JOKE. Not on me at least. Make a joke on Moviewes or Sonic Youth for once. Ah, but like every true comic you want to be applauded maybe...

[Sabin]

(ITALIANO @ May 03 2011,12:55)

(Sabin @ May 02 2011,6:37)

(ITALIANO @ May 02 2011,6:07)

(MovieWes @ May 02 2011,5:52)
I did it, in Rome. I didn't see any of you.

I did. And so did countless friends of mine. There were scores of protests of the past decade, Marco. A lot of them didn't make the news. Not fair.

Well, no, sorry - the majority of Americans was completely indifferent if not supportive of the war, and this is a fact.

And the very fact that you think that only Fox or assholes should wonder about the corpse, Sabin... well, let's just say that joy made you blind, too.

A) No, we didn't overthrow the country. You got me there. B) No, I never said that. I said I just expected to hear it there first. Which is just my way of saying "Man, Marco is starting up on the shit in an incredible hurry."



(ITALIANO @ May 03 2011,12:52)

(Sabin @ May 02 2011,6:34)
A human being who often times loses track of those decades, centuries sometimes, of said grief and is simply glad the man who attacked their city and killed their friends is dead.

And it's a mistake. Emotional and everything, but still a mistake. We are well educated people, we go to university, we read books - EVEN not to lose track of those decades, centuries. It's our duty, as intellectuals first of all (a word which may sound foreign to people like Sonic Youth) to see the difference between history and a football match or an Oscar night.[/quote]
Again, if they're still doing it in a week, I'll agree with you. Right now, I don't care. It's fine. Not every American lives entirely within the annals of history. I'm just gonna go ahead and have the next three conversations out.

"And that's something very intrinsically American that I've - "

I know, Marco.

"But you must understand that in Europe we teach - "

Seriously, I get it. I'm not disagreeing with you. But right now, I don't care.

"Well, you should care. At its core, this myopia is a self-imposed and dangerous - "

Anyway.

In other news, that MLK quotation I made is false.

THE ATLANTIC

Out of Osama's Death, a Fake Quotation Is Born
MAY 2 2011, 6:23 PM ET883
Shortly after I posted my piece on feeling curiously un-thrilled about Bin Laden's death, the following quote came across my twitter feed:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." - Martin Luther King, Jr
I admire the sentiment. But something about it just strikes me as off, like that great Marx quote about the housing bubble that didn't appear anywhere in Das Kapital.
Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism. Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867
Like the Marx quote, it's a bit too a propos. What "thousands" would King have been talking about? In which enemy's death was he supposed to be rejoicing?


A quick Google search turns up lots of tweets, all of them from today. Searching Martin Luther King Jr. quote pages for the word "enemy" does not turn up this quote, only things that probably wouldn't go over nearly so well, like "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy to a friend." I'm pretty sure that this quote, too, is fake.

What's fascinating is the speed of it. Someone made up a quote, attributed it to MLK, Jr., and disseminated it widely, all within 24 hours. Why? What do you get out of saying something pithy, and getting no credit for it?

Perhaps they only wanted to say this thing, and knew that no one would pay attention unless it came from someone else. Or, perhaps they are getting a gargantuan kick out of seeing people repeat their lie ad infinitum. Either way, it seems strange to me.

Update: Not malicious, but mangled. A personal thought was mashed up with an MLK quote through the power of the internet. My terrible, suspicious mind--and the fact that I only saw the fake part of the quote on Twitter--led me astray.

[Big Magilla]

LOL. The name confusion must be catching. A local news anchor, yesterday, referred to Osdama bin Laden as having been touring the devastation in Alabama or somewhere else the President was supposed to have been.

In any event, the latest new is that there were 9 women adn 23 children in the compound and that is was disguised as a girl's school, or at least that's what it said on the side of the building.

Curiously, while there are no loudly stated conspiracy theories about bin Laden not actaully having been killed, there are lots of questions about how he was able to hide in plain sight for as much as five years in walking distance of Pakistan's West Point without Pakistani intelligence having a clue that he was there.

[OscarGuy]

What was Michelle Obama doing in that estate in Abbottabad?

[MovieWes]

Latest information is that Obama's wife acted as a shield but wasn't killed. Another woman, wife of one the couriers, was killed in the crossfire.

Michelle Obama acted as a human shield?!?!?!?! :p

[Big Magilla]

Latest information is that Obama's wife acted as a shield but wasn't killed. Another woman, wife of one the couriers, was killed in the crossfire.

And, Uri, there weren't just stockbrokers killed in the Twin Towers. There were service workers, admin assistants (you know those "girls" they used to call secretaries) and first responders (firemen, policemen, paramedics) and all those people on the planes, most of whom remain as anonymous as those innocents in the rice fields even if their names are read and their picures flashed across CNN every September 11th at Ground Zero.