Never forget what prompted their declaration of war - The Company You Keep (2013) Discussion

[–] roycant07 12 years ago

most of America has bought into the right wing propaganda machine not realizing the government committed war crimes, a campaign of CIA terrorism, sabotage and legal murders with COINTELPRO.

They point fingers at the Weather Underground but the government acts are so impersonal and abstract to the average American that they cannot rationalize how the latter is far more dangerous and destructive than the former.

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

Quite so.

reply

[–] ikke_for_let 11 years ago

Terrorists always have great explanations.

reply

[–] csmonkey69 11 years ago

Terrorists always have great explanations.

Yep just like the murder cold blooded terrorists such as David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Randy Weaver, the Army of God, Dr. Tiller's killer, etc.

reply

[–] ikke_for_let 11 years ago

Yes them too.

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

So true. Which of the Chicago Police Department's and the FBI's explanations impressed you the most?

reply

[–] rusoviet 11 years ago

For me it's 'Jack our Jack....gone are the days....why?.....if only....Bobbie, Teddie...who shall show us the way?....(sound of vomiting)'

Better yet 'klintonska tryin to bang' someone's wife and Allred up in arms about Tiger Wood's ad with Nike....

reply

[–] rusoviet 11 years ago

I guess the one on Harry Hopkins or better yet Obamska

reply

[–] rzajac 10 years ago

Terrorists always have great explanations.

Or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield

reply

[–] llothar 11 years ago

A terrorist for some a freedom fighter for many.

What USA needs is more domestic terrorism against the coporate capitalist dictatorship - Black Panthers forever.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

You are a frightening individual. Get some help, immediately.

reply

[–] Victorgoat 11 years ago

You really have to have lived through those days, the years and years of peaceful demonstrations against the war that got nowhere except to watch it escalate and escalate. All I ever did was sign a petition against the war and go to a couple of stop the war meetings however my phone was tapped for years and life was difficult but at least it made me live my life for the right reasons. Do hope this film throws some light on those frustrating time.

I suppose the W.U. did give the government an excuse to monitor the peaceful demonstrators against the Vietnam War. They could accuse the many people who felt deeply about the futility and unfairness of that war of being involved with the W.U. and harass them for the rest of their lives. Something that needs to be investigated further maybe! There are a lot of questions that need to be answered about what happened in the sixties and seventies.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

I don't need to have lived through those days because I had two uncle's that fought for our nation while you protesters spat upon them. You went to meetings where people were promising revolution. If you don't understand why they would tap your phone to learn how deep you were in with the anti-American agenda, I don't know what I can say to make you understand.

You fell in with the wrong people. I feel bad for you. But you don't seem to have learned that your protesting actually hurt real Americans. You and the people you joined with caused more people to die because it turned actual military victories into political defeats and also left the Vietnamese to rot and die when your people made it politically impossible for us to defend the innocent there.

But I will never feel bad for the filth that tries to glorify those people that bombed American property and spat upon my family members. If you do, I have no respect for you.

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

I don't need to have lived through those days because I had two uncle's that fought for our nation while you protesters spat upon them

Yes you do, as is obvious from all the caricaturing you've done in your post.

Perhaps you can explain to me how "protesting" against an unnecessary and costly war (in lives and dollars) "hurt real Americans" (as opposed to the unreal Americans) while the Vietnam War itself apparently hurt no one.

also left the Vietnamese to rot and die

I believe history will show that we left a lot more of them, including children, rotting and dying while we were over there than when we left. But I'm grateful for your deep concern for the welfare of the Vietnamese people. I guess that means you support the idea of apologizing to them?

reply

[–] liutenantsalt 11 years ago

"I believe history will show that we left a lot more of them, including children, rotting and dying while we were over there than when we left"

Should you ever bother to actually read said history, you may be shocked to find that the NVK killed more innocent people at any given point before, during or after the war than American forces did throughout the entirety.

Or maybe you'll just bury your head back into propaganda, apologism and indoctrination. Whichever.

reply

[–] mingusal 11 years ago

Except that the NVK was made up of Vietnamese people. Whatever you may think of them or their actions, they were involved in a civil war with other Vietnamese people. We were invaders, who slaughtered millions in our own interests (and not the interests of the GIs who fought there, but the interests of politicians and war profiteering corporations). And we did it not only in Vietnam, but also in the adjoining countries of Laos and Cambodia, which also led to humanitarian disasters there.

reply

[–] bureau203 11 years ago

No, Liar.

We were not invaders.

The Soviet Union supported the North Vietnamese, and we supported the South Vietnamese. The north invaded the south. The NKVD was supported by the Soviets.

The idea that we were invaders is just a lie.

The cambodian genocide was purely on the heads of communists. They attempted to implement communism, and killed ONE FOURTH of their population, at least. Nice job, communist. How do you sleep at night with the millions of people who were killed in the name of your ideology?

Better yet, why do you support that genocidal ideology? Even after the Holomdor, the murder of millions of Ukrainians, and the murder of millions of Chinese?

Why do you support genocide?

reply

[–] mingusal 11 years ago

What in the world ever gave you the idea that I'm a communist, or support genocide? That's pretty ridiculous

As for the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, that's just a historical fact - or those 500,000 American troops there must have been a mirage! The Soviet Union never had any combat troops in Vietnam.

U.S. actions in Cambodia, including carpet bombing of civilians and then a military invasion, set in motion the destabilization of the country that led to the victory of the Khmer Rouge. There is no question that the Khmer Rouge regime was one of the most horrifyingly brutal in modern history. But you better check your history, because by the late '70s the U.S. also ended up backing the Khmer Rouge regime.

reply

[–] bureau203 11 years ago

We have thousands of troops in Germany. Are we invading Germany?

Are we invading Great Britain? We must be, according to your bizarre logic, because we have troops there!

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. Our troops were there to defend South Vietnam. I'm sorry this historical fact bothers you.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

reply

[–] mingusal 11 years ago

U.S. troops in Europe are there as part of our participation in NATO, are based in countries that are fellow signatories to that pact, are almost all engaged in peaceful activity, and are part of a defensive force and not in Europe to fight offensive war. This stands in contrast to the incursion of U.S. troops into Vietnam, where they arrived as an outside offensive fighting force. Much as the Normandy invasion was an "invasion" so was our invasion into Vietnam, except that the U.S. entry into Vietnam was opposed by a very large portion of the local population.

Also, your history of the Vietnam War is a little off. North Vietnamese regular combat troops did not enter South Vietnam until after the arrival large numbers of U.S. combat forces and the beginning of the large-scale carpet bombing of North Vietnamese cities by U.S. air forces. U.S. combat forces began landing in large numbers after the 1964 "Tonkin Gulf Incident" - which history now shows was created by the U.S. military in order to give a pretext for the incursion of combat forces into Vietnam and the start of a strategic bombing campaign.

The primary mission of U.S. combat forces was to fight the rebellion of locals (the Vietcong) who sided with the Hanoi government against the Saigon government - in other words, a civil war. In fact, U.S. forces did not meet North Vietnamese regulars in the field in South Vietnam until late in 1965, more than a year after the Tonkin Gulf Incident and the ramping up of U.S. combat forces. Other than the Tet Offensive in 1968, U.S. forces were only sporadically involved in combat directly with North Vietnamese regular troops.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

You neglect to mention that that civil war was paid for by the communist north with both financial and logistical support. That counts as an invasion under any standard. Just ask Al Qaeda and their protection by Afghanistan.

reply

[–] mingusal 11 years ago

Again though, all of those participants were Vietnamese, and either believed themselves to be the legitimate government of all of Vietnam, or we're fighting for what they felt was the best outcome for THEIR country. They were not an invading force of 500,000 foreign troops plus heavy bombers from half a world away.

Oh, and the South Vietnamese government was installed in a CIA-sponsored coup, was undemocratic and dictatorial, engaged in a killing campaign against Buddhist citizens (they were mostly Catholic), and we're largely supported from outside by the U.S. I fail to see how that makes them any better than those supported from the north.

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 9 years ago

If you consider Germany consent to be valid consent, why isn't South Vietnam consent valid consent?

Because, in your judgement, the South Vietnam government isn't legit enough? Too convenient.

reply

[–] mingusal 9 years ago

Because the South Vietnam government was a creation of first the French (at the end of French direct control), and later the CIA, and would not have continued to exist without U.S. support. In fact, as part of the settlement at the end of French colonialism there was supposed to be a referendum of all of Vietnam (south and north) to decide on who would govern. Instead, there was a CIA-supported "election" in the south only, in which the only candidate (Ngo Dinh Diem) received more votes than there were actual citizens. South Vietnamese leaders who actions did not meet U.S. approval were killed and replaced with the guidance and assistance of the CIA (most notably Diem himself).

So, when U.S. combat troops were "invited" into Vietnam after the phantom Tonkin Gulf Incident (U.S. military "advisers" had already been there for several years) it was at the behest of a government the U.S. had basically created and was keeping in place. A government that already had a significant history of violent oppression, which would only increase as the war went on.

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 9 years ago

So? Still isn't an invasion by the US. If you claim that it is an illegitimate operation, I think that is justifiable.

To claim that it is an invasion when the US military mostly stayed on the SV side of the border isn't. At most it is popping up a puppet client state. Invasion implies that the other state is completely independent and does not welcome you. Clearly not the case for SV.

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

mingusal wrote:
"What in the world ever gave you the idea that I'm a communist, or support genocide? That's pretty ridiculous"
-----------------------------------------------------------

Don't you get it? This is how conservative propagandists view anyone who bothers to bother thinking about the world and its nuances in any critical way. That automatically means you support terrorism, communism, genocide, and that you fart loudly near old ladies.

reply

[–] mingusal 11 years ago

Indeed. And I'm just an agent of Stalin, or Mao, or some other long-dead dictator, secretly plotting for our totalitarian takeover behind my carefully-planned facade of participatory democracy, caring about my fellow citizens, thinking that killing large numbers of people halfway around the world may not be the best use of our resources, and arguing online about the historiography of rather crappy movies.

I'm amazed that they still think red-baiting carries any real sting in a world where the Cold War has been over for 23 years, and the world's largest remaining "communist" country is our #1 trading partner.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

Sigh... typical "red scare" remarks coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge that communism has been a failure and is still a dangerous political ideology. As You and your buddy are just Stalin's "useful idiots."

I notice how you ignored my remarks about the North Vietnamese providing aid to the communists in the south and you tried to call the government we were supporting illegitimate. No surprise where you stand.

reply

[–] mingusal 11 years ago

Ummm, Stalin has been dead since 1953, and communism was a failure. But it must have died while you were sleeping or something. Fortunately, we now have the internet and you tube, so you can go back and catch up with the events of 1989, 1990, and 1991. Perhaps you could use one of today's fine computers, constructed with components made in China, and do it while wearing some of those nice comfortable made in Vietnam clothes you got at the mall.

And I didn't ignore your remarks, you just missed my point.

reply

[–] djh2140-173-321740 11 years ago

I think folks are taking it too seriously. It's a Hollywood movie. That's all. Redford, whom I like, is a yeoman Actor. He is more aware than anyone that he probably would have never become famous if Steve McQueen had not died. He want's to be relevant and appear wise. He wanted to work with Julie Christie. Nobody would hire him for a role that young. He wanted another movie to show on Sundance Channel, (which I enjoy.) So he hired a Director and hired the very best Character Actors that were white and available, Susan Sarandon, will appear in anything, she has a can't act younger husband to support. And they made a movie. A pretty good one too my today's standards. No CGI, no robots, no exploding planets. Heck it wasn't even a comic book or television series before. I enjoyed it, but took it for what it was. A movie. Just be glad he didn't trot out Dan Aykroyd in tennis shoes again.

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

Redford was a star long before McQueen died (in 1980). Redford hired no director. He directed the film. Sarandon & Robbins are no longer together, but he can direct, as well as act.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

It was a war we should never have been involved in, so anyone who died because of our involvement, didn't die because of protesters, but because of those who put us over there.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[–] activista 11 years ago

@Hothar

No,we don't need to do any damn "terrorism" or any violent acts to go against the corporate dictatorship---you need to a get a grip--what you need to do is to get people organized and more active in politics at the local and state levels, and support politicians who won't let the corporations and the Koch brothers dictate every move they make at the expense of their constituents,which has been happening for the past couple of years already.

reply

[–] llothar 11 years ago

The political and especially the electorial system makes it impossible in the USA. You are the North Korea of Capitalism. Impossible to change from within. Haven't you learned anything out of Occupy and the reelection of the black corporate whore?

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

The Koch brothers? Seriously? Get your talking points from somewhere other than the Democratic Underground and Kos. Thanks.

Bet you don't think Soros is one of those evil corporate boogeymen even though he actively spends his money to destroy our nation.

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

How does he do that, and what do you think of his democracy-building efforts in Eastern Europe?

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

Thank you!

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

I'm a liberal. I want to see ALL corporate money out of politics--Soros AND Koch. Let people get equal influence---& vote accordingly.

I'm for 'One Person--One Vote', not 'One Dollar--One Vote'.

Then, candidates get elected because of their ideology--not their donations.

Do you disagree?

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

I agree. Get INVOLVED!

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[–] Ironman54 11 years ago

On Oct. 20, 1981, two Nyack police officers were killed after the
robbery of $1.6 million from an armored truck at the Nanuet Mall.

Yesterday, dozens of police officers, citizens, family and friends
gathered to remember Sgt. Edward O'Grady and Officer Waverly
"Chipper" Brown at the entrance to the New York State Thruway where
the two police officers were shot to death.

They also honored Brinks security guard Peter Paige, who had been
killed less than an hour earlier outside the mall.

Stewart was one of the dozens of officers who took part in the Brinks
investigation and the prosecution of several of the killers.

On the day of the robbery, Nyack police set up a roadblock by the
Thruway entrance after the Brinks armored car was ambushed at the
Nanuet Mall by a gang of former Weather Underground radicals and
members of the Black Liberation Army. Paige was shot dead and guard
Joseph Trombino was severely wounded.

The police stopped a U-Haul by the Thruway within a half-hour of the
robbery, and six men jumped out and opened fired on the officers with
high-powered automatic weapons. O'Grady and Brown were killed, and
Nyack police Detective Arthur Kennan was wounded.

"Ed O'Grady's youngest daughter was just born when this happened ...
another daughter was 2, and his son — who is now a Naval officer with
kids of his own — was 6," South Nyack-Grand View Police Chief Robert
Van Cura told the Editorial Board. Van Cura was a young Nyack
patrolman in 1981 and responded to Brinks."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was taught not to wish terrible things on others ... I may have to make an exception this time around. You mincing freaks make me wanna puke. These people were cold blooded murdering scum. Did you root for the perps, of 9/11 too you freakin a**(*&8767 ??? You have NO idea what you're talking about you 14 yr old momas basement living punks... You couldn't hold a CANDLE to these men who were executed by these revolutionary wanna bes. May everyone one of you ... ah, I can't bring myself to say it and I'm gonna have to work VERY hard to stop thinking it. YOU are everything thats wrong with this world. Poetic justice would dictate that you suffer the same loss the victims families suffered. I just can't bring myself to wish it upon another ... I'm so nauseous right now, I'm gotta stop.

reply

[–] jwa007-190-681590 11 years ago

Wow! Way to cherry pick your data. SOME former members of the Weather Underground participated in the Brinks job. BUT...during the most active years of the Weather Underground when they set off bombs in several government buildings they never, NEVER, killed anyone. They always gave plenty of warning of the bombs and stated reasons for the bombs be set off. Yes, they did plenty of property damage, but as a group the Weather Underground did not engage in callous collateral damage as the government agencies they were opposed to did. The Weather Underground also disbanded after our involvement with Vietnam came to a close in 1973. They achieved their goals and nothing takes the wind out of your sails quite like getting what you have been fighting years to get. The post victory let down is really something. Let's keep a bit of perspective here.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

You're a liar. They firebombed a judge's house with no concern over the family of the judge or anyone's lives.

Furthermore, when they bombed a police station, they gave a mere 8 minutes notice before detonation and it was a miracle that no one was killed. They should've all been shot for treason.

reply

[–] liutenantsalt 11 years ago

"during the most active years of the Weather Underground when they set off bombs in several government buildings they never, NEVER, killed anyone."

You're a goddamn liar, your relativist rationalization is pathetic, and you deliberately ignore the fact that they only ever swore off bombing regular citizens AFTER a bomb intended to do just that went off their in their faces.

reply

[–] ascaav 11 years ago

Really? Murder is the answer? The same Black Panther's who leader, Eldridge Cleaver, promoted rape by making the statement that "rape is revolutionary"? Please! All of these groups become far worse than the groups they state they want to stop. In the meantime they kill in the name of morals, yet it is only the innocent that suffer. Now they live life with no regard for the killing and we make heroes out of them. Totally disgusting.

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

What did the Black Panthers have to do with this movie? Were the characters depicted in this film members of the Black Panthers organization?

reply

[–] activista 11 years ago

@ascaav

Get your history straight---Eldridge Cleaver was basically a ex-thug who had some serious *beep* issues with women---and in fact, some people did not even want him to join the Panthers in the first place. And he wasn't the leader of the Panthers----that was Huey Newton, which goes to show you how much you don't know about them (and who, BTW,never promoted any kind of rape as being so-called revolutionary. The Panthers kicked him out after he got one of their youngest members, a 17-year old named Bobby Hutton, killed in a gunfight with the police. My point is, everybody wasn't neccesarily on board with his BS, and you can't paint a whole organization as bad simply because they had a couple of punks who used their platform for their own ends. As something who grew up studying anything I could get my hands on about the Panthers, you need to actually educate yourself about their real purpose in coming into existence---which was to protect black people from police brutality by white police officers in their own neighborhoods,which, sadly, was the norm at the time.

BTW, the film dosen't even deal with the Panthers, so your little outburst was pointless.

reply

[–] zaphod-53 11 years ago

I believe he was responding to this post from Feb 22:

A terrorist for some a freedom fighter for many.

What USA needs is more domestic terrorism against the coporate capitalist dictatorship - Black Panthers forever.

At this time, the post is the last one on page 1

reply

[–] The_Hitter 10 years ago

Oh, yes... Like the Taliban, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis... freedom fighters all.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

No. That's just an excuse.

What prompted them was the desire to overthrow the American government and replace it with a communist society. They are traitors and murderers and should've all been executed.

the remaining members that live public lives are still unrepentant and are trying to indoctrinate the young and overthrow the government even now with their most successful prodigy in the highest office in the land.

You are a sheep.

reply

[–] activista 11 years ago

@roblov

If you're talking about the Weather Underground,none of them ever killed everyone, and some of them simply ran underground for years, and a number of years have rejoined mainstream society and are living regular lives like anybody else. You need to specify exactly who the heck you're talking about, since there were many different groups back in the '60's that had legit reasons to challenge the government---the main one being the Vietnam war.

"They are traitors and murderers and should've all been executed."

What? WTF??!? Who the hell are you talking about here, or do you even know?

"the remaining members that live public lives are still unrepentant and are trying to indoctrinate the young and overthrow the government even now with their most successful prodigy in the highest office in the land."

OH,please---I've had enough of you right-wing nuts just getting mad, spewing out typical Fox News right-wing talking points without even actually thinking about what the hell you're saying (which is why you Repubs lost the election---bwah ha ha ha ha ha--damn,I'm glad y'all lost!) But then that's par for the course for you brainless non-thinking Repub/Rethug sheep who would rather let the right wingnuts do all your thinking for you. And if you haven't got it through your head that Obama isn't a Marxist Communist anything, there's no hope for you at this point. I'm done.

reply

[–] roblov1 11 years ago

Typical communist apologist. You want to destroy the nation thinking you'll create some utopia. But your utopian society is nothing more than North Korea or Cuba. Poverty everywhere.

You disgust me.

reply

[–] Ethereal-Cloud 11 years ago

There was substantial funding behind the anti-war movement in the U.S. and Europe the 1960's through the 1980's. Records show that a good portion of those funds originated from the KGB.

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

Ethereal-Cloud wrote:
"There was substantial funding behind the anti-war movement in the U.S. and Europe the 1960's through the 1980's. Records show that a good portion of those funds originated from the KGB."
---------------------------------------------------------

And precisely what was that "good portion?" What was the percentage? You don't have to answer directly. A citation will be just fine.

reply

[–] Ethereal-Cloud 11 years ago

On page 78 of Stanislav Lunev's and Ira Winkler's book titled "Through the Eyes of the Enemy", is one of the most revealing bits of information concerning the duping of American peace activists. Stanislav Lunev was Russia's highest ranking Soviet Military defector.

"Only in our second year did we learn about our operational target's military. In my case, it was the Chinese People's Liberation Army and Special Services. This was while the United States was pulling out of Vietnam. We spent a great deal of time studying the Vietnam War, which was considered a Vietnamese victory over American imperialism. While the GRU instructors would not state it directly, they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success. The GRU had a massive presence in both North and South Vietnam; their operatives worked under cover of the North Vietnamese Special Services.
Our instructors also told us about how the GRU influenced the American public. The GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad. Funding was provided via undercover operatives or front organizations. These would fund another group that in turn would fund student organizations. The GRU also helped Vietnam fund its propaganda campaign as a whole.
What will be a great surprise to the American people is that the GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States that it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese. The antiwar propaganda cost the GRU more than $1 billion, but as history shows, it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the U.S. military."

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

Is there direct evidence that either the SDS or the WUO were funded directly by China or the GRU? All I see in Lunev's statement is questionable hearsay evidence of American anti-war group funding. I wouldn't be shocked if this were the case, but I don't find this persuasive evidence, certainly not persuasive enough to conclude that a "good amount" of the anti-war effort was funded directly by Russia and China.

reply

[–] Korios 11 years ago

There was substantial funding behind the anti-war movement in the U.S. and Europe the 1960's through the 1980's. Records show that a good portion of those funds originated from the KGB.

Could you please provide us the specific location of those records within the library of Hogwarts sir?

http://www.korioi.net

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

Really? Give us footnotes, since u seem to have them. 'Records'! Forgive us if we don't take you @ your word.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[–] Korios 11 years ago

@roblov1 Do you check out if there are red communist monsters under your bed before you sleep?
Calling someone communist in 2013? Really? Is your surname Hoover?

http://www.korioi.net

reply

[–] liutenantsalt 11 years ago

"Calling someone communist in 2013? Really? "

Are you being deliberately disengenuous, do you live under a rock, or are you just THAT *beep* stupid?

reply

[–] LuSiD 10 years ago

Nice fallacy Sherlock. People, stop wasting your time discussing with liutenantsalt. Its a waste of your time and energy. Just browse throughout this thread. All you will notice is name calling and other fallacies (the one I am replying to is as dumb as George W. Bush "you are with us or against us").

I've been loving too much, caring too little -- TormentoR.

reply

[–] DavyPowlett-Jones 10 years ago

^ this

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mechajutaro 11 years ago

creating an American heroin plague

Yes, Uncle Sam personally sat in the home of every dope fiend in America threatening murder unless they jab themselves with the needle.

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

No, not personally, but if you really care, which I suspect you don't, you'll take a look at this classic work of American political science.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/dp/1556524 838

reply

[–] i_dont_even_try 11 years ago

"...a war that cost 50,000 young American lives..."

Close to 60,000, dimwit.

reply

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 11 years ago

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on!

reply

[–] manonguapo 11 years ago

you guys probably don't vote, just sit there and bitch, you ain't making a different, you're as bad as the people you hate.

reply

[–] mtppatrick 11 years ago

SO, all of you agree that this movie was utter crap?

Even broccoli screams when you pull it out of the ground...

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

mtppatrick wrote:
"SO, all of you agree that this movie was utter crap?"
--------------------------------------------------------------

I would agree that you are utter crap, based on the stupidity you've displayed on this board. The movie was subpar...maybe a 5 or 6.

reply

[–] WinTwoSeventy 11 years ago

Gee you sure seem angry. Are you depressed? Lots of teenagers are depressed, it's almost normal. Would it make you feel better to tell me how stupid I am, and how smart you are, and call me some names? Go ahead then if it makes you feel better.

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

There are a lot of morons here who seem unable to distinguish between what the WUO did and why they did it compared to, say, the Boston Marathon bombers. I call 'em as I see 'em. Why do you care? You seem awfully sensitive. Is it because deep down you consider yourself a moron and are offended on behalf of the other morons? I mean really, what the hell do you care?

reply

[–] ny_nytimes 11 years ago

I'm not informed: I haven't seen the movie; and, I barely know anything about the Brinks armored car robbery that the story is loosely based on.

But, let me get this straight...

Some of you say it's okay for someone to act as a terrorist because the government acts like a terrorist. (so, am I allowed to murder anyone I like because you think that the government kills who they like? ok, cool).

Some of you say that the government performs acts that's worthy of a citizen revolution. (so, you'll allow me the full 2nd Amendment extent to a regulated Militia to bear Arms without complaining about it? ok, cool.)

Some of you say that having greed and profiting from criminally robbing a Brinks car is permitted if there was a declaration of war made first. (so, will you permit Walmart to make a declaration of war in order to expand their profits even more? cool.)

And finally, some of you say that the WU participants who entered into a conspiracy to commit armed crimes aren't guilty because they didn't pull the trigger. (so, you'll be fine if I conspire with mafia soldiers to commit armed robbery at your house, where they kill a Parent in your family, who had nothing to do with the government?) NOT one official killed in the Brinks event were involved with the Fred Hampton death.

Actually, you guys aren't informed.

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

ny_nytimes wrote:
"Some of you say that having greed and profiting from criminally robbing a Brinks car is permitted if there was a declaration of war made first."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of us say that? And who here on this IMDB forum was making that precise declaration you claim?

I conclude two things from your absurd post:

(1) You're creating a strawman scenario to justify your baseless rant.
(2) You're clued out to the fact that the WUO did not orchestrate the 1981 Brinks car robbery.

Here's some advice. If you want to belch out your agenda in a persuasive way, get a clue about the facts first.

reply

[–] ny_nytimes 11 years ago

Actually, the Original Poster implied the claim. Read the title, "Never forget what prompted their declaration of war".

(now, before you reply about "PRECISE" vs. "IMPLIED" claims, I know the OP only said, "they"... BUT we know he's referring to the revolutionary WUO group at the time of--and including the incident of--the Brink's armored car robbery).
Here's why: The OP referred to the Fred Hampton related declaration of war made by the WUO on May 21, 1970... which he's linking to the Brink's robbery... because he's posting in Robert Redford's movie that's closely tied to said robbery. (It's kinda obvious, but I can tell you more in a PM, if you'd like).

Now, the Brink's robbery was about stealing $1.6 million dollars. Simple, profit-motivated, crime. The Brink's guards who were killed had nothing to do with the death of Fred Hampton. The Brink's robbery was a crime of greed whose goal was profit... $1.6 million dollars worth of profit.

David Gilbert, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck were part of the robbery. They were members of the Weather Underground. They helped orchestrate the robbery. Hey, you are right that the Organization Head did not organize the robbery... only a terrorist group (M19CO) splintered off from the WUO--Weather Underground Organization, terrorists who bombed the Pentagon. (wow, lol) Again, the OP ORIGINALLY linked "their declaration" (ie. WUO) to the movie/Brinks forum--not me--but I ran with it.

Anyway, I AM citing pretty good facts even though I already said I'm not fully informed. But, you haven't disproved any of my points. Plus, for sake of space, I had THREE other points in my list to cover. Anyway, I bet you can't continue a discourse using only facts and not using ANY insults (ie. strawman, absurd, clued out, belch, not have a clue).

By the way, where is your stated position? It is easy to pick holes in other people's SUMMARY position... but can you initiate your own position and let it stand to scrutiny?

reply

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

ny_nytimes wrote:
"Anyway, I AM citing pretty good facts even though I already said I'm not fully informed."
-----------------------------------------------------

The WUO's "declaration of war" had absolutely nothing to do with the 1981 Brink's robbery. The WUO was an entity completely separate from the Black Liberation Army that was the catalyst for the robbery, as well as separate from the commie outfit known as the May 19th Communist Organization (which had the ex-WUO members involved). The latter organization was no more the WUO than registered Republican Timothy McVeigh was a typical representative of the Republican Party. Fools like David Gilbert, once of the WUO, had a different operative political philosophy. You know how I know this? It's because the WUO never killed anybody. They didn't even injure anybody. Had dopes like Boudin and Gilbert been instrumental in the marching orders that the WUO followed - which were really put forth by Ayers, Dorhn, Jones, and Sojourn (the well known WUO leadership) - then the WUO would've actually advocated murder to achieve their political aims. But they didn't murder anyone. Further, they had an explicit and well-known policy to not even injure anyone. This is not arguable. You could've found out this much in 2 minutes via google.

The OP made no such claim of linkage that the WUO's declaration of war implied that the Brinks murders were legitimate. That linkage is all your own, apparently to make your agenda seem credible, and is not born of fact as you say. You're putting words into the OP's post that are not there. Maybe the OP does feel as you say, but then again maybe the OP doesn't. You and I cannot know at this moment. But for certain you cannot logically deduce your claims from what the OP wrote. I see that as plain old dishonesty.

I already stated elsewhere that I think Boudin & Gilbert deserved their sentences and in no way do I support their post-WUO actions. And frankly, I don't know much about what they did while associated with the WUO, other than that Gilbert helped write some communist manifesto or other, to which I do not subscribe.

It's the outrageous dishonesty and historical revisionism on this board that disgusts me and keeps me coming back for more. How's it feel to be in the same camp as illiterate, venomous liars like cutlerfanbears and roblov1? To be fair, you're James Joyce compared to those drooling clowns.

reply

[–] ny_nytimes 11 years ago

Dude, instead of the OP saying, "hey guys, the WUO has nothing to do with the violent events covered in the movie"... he posts in a forum about a movie loosely based on the Brink's robbery and says, "NEVER FORGET WHAT PROMPTED THEIR DECLARATION OF WAR"... I ran with HIS inference.

Now, I had 3 other points covered from other posts in this forum... but it's getting old. And, I'm pretty sure that detonating unwelcomed bombs still makes you a criminal(despite whatever warnings).

Anyway, you mentioned dishonest logic. But then, you say that the WUO, "... didn't even injure anybody".

Do you know what Mens Rea is? Basically, intent. So, even if you DON'T hurt anyone but TRY and to do something (actus rea) with an INTENT to hurt someone (mens rea) you can be found guilty of a crime... EVEN IF you don't actually hurt someone. (ie. a bank robber using a Gun can say that he didn't intend harm, but if he put a bullet in the chamber instead of bringing an empty gun, well, that act/intent changes things).

The WUO detonated a bomb at the NYC Police Headquarters and only gave them a 6 minute warning to evacuate... not 6 hours, but 6 minutes. It was LUCK no one was killed.

The WUO bomb that exploded in their own safe-house that killed 3 WUO people... was a NAIL bomb. Nail bombs are not for property damage, but for intended harm. Again, they built the bomb (actus rea) that was a personal-harm device (mens rea) not a property-harm device.

WUO's own member Rudd said that the bomb was a pipe-bomb filled with dynamite and nails... intended for a Dance in NJ.

There was intent. (which carried on with the members I already listed). You're not defending a guiltless organization. In fact, (and I wish I was the first to quote this, but) "The only reason they were not guilty of MASS murder is mere incompetence"

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

The OP made no such claim of linkage that the WUO's declaration of war implied that the Brinks murders were legitimate. That linkage is all your own, apparently to make your agenda seem credible, and is not born of fact as you say. You're putting words into the OP's post that are not there

You are absolutely correct. I've done no such thing. I'm categorically opposed to violent insurrection in a democracy and opposed to terrorism against civilians in all cases.

reply

[–] Venus-in-Fur 11 years ago

Actually, the Original Poster implied the claim. Read the title, "Never forget what prompted their declaration of war"

Not really, although I can see how that inference could be drawn. In point of fact, I actually agree with your position, not with those who defend the WUO's actions. What point did you think I was making in my OP?

reply