Imagine That -- I’m Still Anti-War

fuck

the tiki bomb said:

When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments in 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. It directed at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and the concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) as a way to solve issues.
I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan.

Peace, man.

Again, if you want to talk about Ukraine, we can talk about it. But the conflict there does not fit the language Ed was using in his speech. Firstly, the Russians aren't crossing into territory and bombing people--it is a far more complicated situation that involved a referendum voting in favor of annexation and joining with Russia. It is a situation where people inside a country can't agree on a unified vision for the future of said country. Yes there is foreign involvement, but not a country invading another and forcibly taking its land without the support of the people there. Second, how do US tax dollars fund bombs being dropped on children in Ukraine? Even if one wants to make the case that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, where does this sentiment which Ed expressed fit? I understand the point about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I find it strange that he would deliver a speech so angrily years after US pulled out from there? I'd say it probably has something to do with what was the number one news story at the time--the massacre taking place in gaza, funded by US tax dollars.

I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion

benjs

fuck said:

the tiki bomb said:

When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments in 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. It directed at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and the concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) as a way to solve issues.
I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan.

Peace, man.

Again, if you want to talk about Ukraine, we can talk about it. But the conflict there does not fit the language Ed was using in his speech. Firstly, the Russians aren't crossing into territory and bombing people--it is a far more complicated situation that involved a referendum voting in favor of annexation and joining with Russia. It is a situation where people inside a country can't agree on a unified vision for the future of said country. Yes there is foreign involvement, but not a country invading another and forcibly taking its land without the support of the people there. Second, how do US tax dollars fund bombs being dropped on children in Ukraine? Even if one wants to make the case that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, where does this sentiment which Ed expressed fit? I understand the point about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I find it strange that he would deliver a speech so angrily years after US pulled out from there? I'd say it probably has something to do with what was the number one news story at the time--the massacre taking place in gaza, funded by US tax dollars.

I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion

I personally think that it was about Gaza, I know that some people will not think it was about Gaza, but a much more important question is: does it matter? I don't recall anyone's voice being suppressed when they brought up other issues here, only in cases of false equivalence. I see no reason to keep discussing what he was referring to because all of these issues (Gaza, ISIS, etc) fall under an umbrella of protecting, preserving, and enhancing lives, and whether Eddie vocalized it as that or not - I think it's pretty clear that that's what he's inherently in favour of.

By the way, fuck, I'm not singling you out, you just happened to have the most recent response on this topic on the thread.

ikiT

I, personally, am anti-war. Whatever reasons are provided to me to be pro-war, I reject.

brianlux

the tiki bomb said:

I, personally, am anti-war. Whatever reasons are provided to me to be pro-war, I reject.

I hope the mods don't flag me for being "off-topic" or "combative".

Your statements are not off topic at all. This thread is surely at least partly about being anti-war- it's right in the thread title. I don't see any reason you should be flagged for being off topic. There are a few people (not mods) here who might tell you to not post here but the best thing to do is put them on ignore. Don't be censored by aggressive people!

The Juggler

JimmyV said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.

"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god.....!"

-- Eddie Vedder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx8r-TiLSVg

fuck

benjs said:

fuck said:

the tiki bomb said:

When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments in 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. It directed at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and the concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) as a way to solve issues.
I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan.

Peace, man.

Again, if you want to talk about Ukraine, we can talk about it. But the conflict there does not fit the language Ed was using in his speech. Firstly, the Russians aren't crossing into territory and bombing people--it is a far more complicated situation that involved a referendum voting in favor of annexation and joining with Russia. It is a situation where people inside a country can't agree on a unified vision for the future of said country. Yes there is foreign involvement, but not a country invading another and forcibly taking its land without the support of the people there. Second, how do US tax dollars fund bombs being dropped on children in Ukraine? Even if one wants to make the case that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, where does this sentiment which Ed expressed fit? I understand the point about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I find it strange that he would deliver a speech so angrily years after US pulled out from there? I'd say it probably has something to do with what was the number one news story at the time--the massacre taking place in gaza, funded by US tax dollars.

I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion

I personally think that it was about Gaza, I know that some people will not think it was about Gaza, but a much more important question is: does it matter? I don't recall anyone's voice being suppressed when they brought up other issues here, only in cases of false equivalence. I see no reason to keep discussing what he was referring to because all of these issues (Gaza, ISIS, etc) fall under an umbrella of protecting, preserving, and enhancing lives, and whether Eddie vocalized it as that or not - I think it's pretty clear that that's what he's inherently in favour of.

By the way, fuck, I'm not singling you out, you just happened to have the most recent response on this topic on the thread.

Thanks for your post. I think it does matter. Some people (not necessarily the ones I've been responding to on this page) have attempted to use the argument that he wasn't talking about Gaza to then use a very vague and undefined "anti-war" stance to falsely attribute moral equivalency in a conflict where one side is occupying and oppressing another. I think Eddie's speech very clearly shows an emphasis on one side that is taking over land that is not theirs, that is "looking for a reason to kill", that is dropping bombs on children with OUR tax dollars, thus forcing us to shoulder responsibility. I actually think that acknowledging this is what can help lead to activism to stop the massacre and the occupation. I think taking a principled stance on this is essential. I think Eddie did that, but as I've said before he somewhat backtracked with this latest statement which has allowed the apathetic to invade with their calls for nonaction (they even refuse to endorse nonviolent activism such as BDS), and their false statements blaming the victims for their death and oppression.

Generalizing allows these ideas to flourish. Of course one should assume we all begin from a standpoint looking for peace, but contextualization is what allows us to move forward. But many here insist on removing the responsibility the US and western countries have with regards to the Israeli persecution and murder of Palestinians by simply saying "all these conflicts exist and it's just so sad," rather than use Eddie's words as a call to action.

dancinacrossthewater

I actually think we're making some progress. Let me address a couple of things. Fuck, because I'm not responding to your posts point by point, it doesn't mean I'm not reading them. I've heard a lot of your points before, and when you start calling the stuff I post 'lies', it makes me less inclined to give what you post attention. But yeah, you've made some reasonable points. Israel needs to be moved to the left, and I'm not totally against BDS in some form. But BDS with supporting and encouraging Hamas is not acceptable. At the very least, someone looking for peace in Israel-Palestine needs to actively support the return of Fatah to power in addition to BDS.

And I don't accept that Israel is "just looking for a reason to kill." Absolutely not. That's people like ISIS. There's a difference.

JimmyV

fuck said:

JimmyV said:

fuck said:

JimmyV said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.

"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"

-- Eddie Vedder

Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?

No not really. ISIS was actually homegrown, not really crossing into territory. Also you conveniently left out the part where he talked about our tax dollars funding bombs being dropped on children. Last I checked: the US wasn't funding ISIS, and ISIS was not conducting surgical strikes from above that resulting in hundreds of children being brutally murdered.

But let's continue to pretend otherwise.

On Friday fuck you wrote:

"No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels."

When someone does point out a parallel, it results in your response above. Apparently, if someone were to bring another conflict in and start a separate conversation, you personally would complain about it.

As for the parallel, the Yazidis trapped in those mountains may disagree that ISIS has not rolled over their borders. And now they are carrying American weapons confiscated from the Iraqi army. So, you may not want to see any parallels there, but that does not mean they are not there.

Again, waging a war to make this thread about a single conflict helps no one in Gaza or anywhere else. It is just arguing on the internet.

First of all, you are conflating two different things: I maintain that Ed's initial comments were about gaza and Israel. You claim otherwise. I don't understand why you seem to think that a disagreement on that point means I am trying to silence you.

Secondly, I merely pointed out that you made a false equivalency. ISIS unfortunately is a homegrown threat to the people of the region. They are certainly a threat, but in this case it is not the same as a settler colonial entity. The conflict involving them is not about people crossing into land that does not belong to them and establishing colonies, it is about intolerant people persecuting another. Of course there are parallels, but my point was that you were making a false one in this particular case. We can't act like ISIS and its supporters are from another part of the world terrorizing innocent villagers. There is a context to every situation that deserves a coherent analysis.
I also find your point about them using American weapons taken from the Iraqi army an extremely weak one. The American imperial ambitions did contribute to the growth of ISIS, absolutely, but to say that our tax dollars directly are funding bombs being dropped on children in this case is a false analogy. I'm more than happy to talk about the situation in Iraq in this thread, but don't be surprised if I disagree with your analysis of it, as well as your using specific language by Ed that does not apply in this particular context.

A few things.

First, on Friday you claimed in so many words that no one would get upset if someone started a separate conversation about another conflict. On Sunday, you did exactly what you claimed no one would do. I wasn't "pretending" about anything at all. Dancinacrossthewater commented about a very real, very serious situation in Iraq. I quoted a section of Eddie's text that had relevance. As you later admitted, of course there were parallels. At no time and at no point did I claim that Eddie was speaking specifically, exclusively, or even directly about the situation in Iraq. But my point remains: those people in the mountains may seriously disagree with you that no one from the outside has crossed their borders to terrorize them. Again, no one was "pretending" anything.

Second, this statement, "I maintain that Ed's initial comments were about gaza and Israel. You claim otherwise" is incorrect. I don't claim otherwise that Eddie's initial speech at Milton Keynes was about Israel and Gaza. I claim that his words there were not exclusively about Israel and Gaza, and that when he mentioned crossing borders, he was not speaking exclusively about the Israelis. Of course some of that was inspired by Gaza. I have NEVER claimed otherwise.

Third, I don't disagree that the comparison between the confiscation of American arms and the direct supply of American arms was not a very good one. I concede that. However, that is not to say there are not innocents being killed in Iraq at this moment with American arms. If we are in agreement that the situation there is an unfolding tragedy and that it is worthy of discussion in this thread, that is good enough for me. I view that as progress.

Fourth, and maybe most importantly, I would ask you to do the following. Put aside everything you know to be happening in Gaza, as well as all the other arguments in this thread. Then look closely at the specific passage that I quoted:

"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"

I assure you, I was not pretending anything, nor was I conveniently leaving anything out. We shall still see how the ISIS situation unfolds but, to me, this particular passage spoke very well to what is happening in Iraq. Maybe we disagree, but I do stand by that.

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.

And what does that have to do with Israel's illegal occupation and land-grab? What does it have to do with Hamas?

Absolutely nothing.

Excuse me, but it seems that you have forgotten the title of this thread. We are not obligated to talk about Gaza here. Get a grip Byrnzie.

WhatYouTaughtMe

Byrnzie said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.

And what does that have to do with Israel's illegal occupation and land-grab? What does it have to do with Hamas?

Absolutely nothing.

No it doesn't. It has to do with the original post. You know, the non-specific anti-war statement.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul said:

Excuse me, but it seems that you have forgotten the title of this thread. We are not obligated to talk about Gaza here. Get a grip Byrnzie.

Excuse me, but dancinacrossthewater was trying to pretend that Hamas and ISIS are the same thing. Try keeping up.

dancinacrossthewater

I wasn't pretending anything man. Hamas and ISIS aren't the same. ISIS is worse - and it's worth caring about what they're doing to people. If you look away from Israel for two seconds its not going to atomize Gaza.

WhatYouTaughtMe

Byrnzie said:

PJ_Soul said:

Excuse me, but it seems that you have forgotten the title of this thread. We are not obligated to talk about Gaza here. Get a grip Byrnzie.

Excuse me, but dancinacrossthewater was trying to pretend that Hamas and ISIS are the same thing. Try keeping up.

So what is your take on ISIS?

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie said:

PJ_Soul said:

Excuse me, but it seems that you have forgotten the title of this thread. We are not obligated to talk about Gaza here. Get a grip Byrnzie.

Excuse me, but dancinacrossthewater was trying to pretend that Hamas and ISIS are the same thing. Try keeping up.

No he wasn't.

JimmyV

"Convert or die."

It is medieval what ISIS is doing. In 2014.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/cnnd_fullarticle?topic=newsarticle&category=cnnd_world&articleId=cnn/2014/08/09/world/meast/yazidi-survivor#page2

WhatYouTaughtMe

JimmyV said:

"Convert or die."

It is medieval what ISIS is doing. In 2014.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/cnnd_fullarticle?topic=newsarticle&category=cnnd_world&articleId=cnn/2014/08/09/world/meast/yazidi-survivor#page2

Incredibly sad.

brianlux

Well, at least we've gotten to the point where no one recently has called another "Liar".

Progress!

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul said:

Byrnzie said:

PJ_Soul said:

Excuse me, but it seems that you have forgotten the title of this thread. We are not obligated to talk about Gaza here. Get a grip Byrnzie.

Excuse me, but dancinacrossthewater was trying to pretend that Hamas and ISIS are the same thing. Try keeping up.

No he wasn't.

Yes he was. He's been saying it for tha last five or six pages of this thread. ISIS, Hamas, Al Queda - all the same. Islamic terrorists seeking to take over the World. This is what he's trying to argue.

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie said:

PJ_Soul said:

Byrnzie said:

PJ_Soul said:

Excuse me, but it seems that you have forgotten the title of this thread. We are not obligated to talk about Gaza here. Get a grip Byrnzie.

Excuse me, but dancinacrossthewater was trying to pretend that Hamas and ISIS are the same thing. Try keeping up.

No he wasn't.

Yes he was. He's been saying it for tha last five or six pages of this thread. ISIS, Hamas, Al Queda - all the same. Islamic terrorists seeking to take over the World. This is what he's trying to argue.

Nuh uh.

He said himself that's not what he's saying. It's just what you think he's saying.

brianlux

Six steps forward, half a dozen back? )