de la rocha speech

This is the place for political/social issues debates.

de la rocha speech

Is fusa tuitim na eirigh
Advanced Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 22:42

03 May 2007, 23:03 #1

[URL=INDIO, California (Reuters) - Militant rap-rock group Rage Against the Machine reunited after a seven-year absence during a California music festival over the weekend, offering a sharpened version of their old message: fight the power.]rage against the machine reunites[/URL]

between songs lead singer zack de la rocha said the following
"A good friend of ours said that if the same laws were applied to U.S. Presidents as were applied to the Nazi's after World War II, then every single one of 'em, every last rich white one of 'em from Truman on would have been hung to death, and shot. And this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be. But the challenges that we face, they go way beyond administrations. Way beyond elections. Way Beyond every four years of pulling levers. Way beyond that, because this whole rotten system has become so vicious and cruel, that in order to sustain itself, it needs to destroy entire countries, and profit from their reconstruction, in order to survive, and that's not a system that changes every four years, it's a system that we have to break down generation after generation after generation after generation after generation. Wake up."


what do you guys think about this
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." William Proxmire
Reply
Like

dimmick
Advanced Member
dimmick
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 05:28

04 May 2007, 04:15 #2

Rage is an old time band that represents not the mainstream Democrat viewpoint or even the extremely liberal viewpoint - they represent the radical anarchist viewpoint, and I don't deign that position worthy of serious discussion. Suffice to say that anything they propose is beyond the realm of the ridiculous and straight into the laughably obnoxious.

Also, I fixed your quote tags, but you should put the link to the site in those URL tags instead of the first sentence of the story.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
-- Plato
Reply
Like

Is fusa tuitim na eirigh
Advanced Member
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 22:42

04 May 2007, 20:27 #3

yeah, i think that they went a little too far with that one
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." William Proxmire
Reply
Like

Josh
Newbie
Josh
Newbie
Joined: 10 May 2007, 02:30

10 May 2007, 19:23 #4

Is fusa tuitim na eirigh @ May 4 2007, 03:27 PM wrote: Is fusa tuitim na eirigh: yeah, i think that they went a little too far with that one

dimmik: they represent the radical anarchist viewpoint

Agreed

It sounds like a violent hippy battle cry...if there ever was one :D

Can't say I'm old enough to know the band that well....but dimmik's view seems to accurately fit the speech the lead singer made.

Radical anarchist....isn't anarchist pretty radical though?
Lovin' this site for the chapter outlines ^_^
Reply
Like

dimmick
Advanced Member
dimmick
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 05:28

10 May 2007, 22:01 #5

Josh @ May 10 2007, 02:23 PM wrote:Radical anarchist....isn't anarchist pretty radical though?

When I said radical, I meant that they themselves are the radicals; you are right, anarchism is an inherently radical viewpoint. Some anarchists are perfectly logical people and use well-reasoned arguments to try and prove their point - the ones I refer to as radicals are the ones who do nothing but spew ridiculous talking points and propagandist drivel that would only appeal to someone who is already on their side.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
-- Plato
Reply
Like

Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 02:01

11 Jan 2008, 03:10 #6

That statement was made by Noam Chomsky originally, and Chomsky is the person with all the evidence for this. Since the bombings of Hiroshima (killing civilians) and the establishment of the corrupt regime that is Israel, evicting the native Muslims from their land and continuing the trend of agression towards the Middle East, Truman really does merit the criminal status. Since then, nearly every president has violated war crime laws that the UN defines. In modern day, Bush handled 911 and radical Islam VERY poorly, and for the sake of making those "terrorist states" our puppets in which we can profit from by wrongfully taking their resources like oil, Bush has sent our armed forces over the past several years to destroy nations and kill thousands of innocent civilians ( who weren't radical Islam "animals," as we've been told, since Al Queda and the like are very small minorities). Look at nomorevictims.org, it is sick what our leaders are doing. We aren't eliminating radical Islam, we're giving those people more reasons to hate us and more excuses to be affiliated with terrorist groups. In the words of Zack : "Wake up." Our foreign policy really is criminal and imperialistic, and the power-whores in charge really are parasites (Democrats and Republicans, both generally are full of crap). (Ron Paul, save us all)

And, yes, I am a fan of RATM, and Zack de la Rocha's lyrics really have changed my perspective on the world. I was among the ranks of the very Conservative until I listened to him and gave his lyrics a real listen and researched some of the points he made. I disagree with some of the things he says, but I believe he makes a very valid point here.
Reply
Like

dimmick
Advanced Member
dimmick
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 05:28

11 Jan 2008, 07:27 #7

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:That statement was made by Noam Chomsky originally, and Chomsky is the person with all the evidence for this.

Noam Chomsky? You mean the radical Communist peacenik who has a decades-long record of distorting the truth and pushing extremist propaganda? No thanks, you'll need a different source for me to take anything like that seriously.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Since the bombings of Hiroshima (killing civilians)

And which actually saved civilian lives in the long run, as unbelievably huge numbers of people, both Japanese and American, would have died in the event of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:the establishment of the corrupt regime that is Israel

Corrupt regime? As opposed to the liberal, humanitarian regimes in Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Egypt, which are paragons of administrative integrity and progressive values? :rolleyes:

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:evicting the native Muslims from their land

That's the first point you made that's even arguable. I'm really not sure about the selection of Palestine as an appropriate place to move all the displaced Jews after the horrors of the Holocaust, but what's done is done, and at this point it can't just be undone.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:and continuing the trend of agression towards the Middle East

Which "trend of aggression" was this, again? The Middle East has been a hotbed of aggression for practically the entirety of human history, and it certainly wasn't always the Western powers on the offensive. Know anything about the caliphate or the Ottoman Empire? You know, the ones that invaded Europe in late Middle Ages and got as far as Vienna in the East and southern France in the West? The only trend of aggression that exists in the Middle East is violence in general, and really, that could be said of many regions around the world.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Truman really does merit the criminal status.

Based on what evidence, again? Giving a shattered ethnic group a homeland? Making an immensely courageous decision to save lives in the long run by using atomic weapons against Japan? For helping rebuild Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan?

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Since then, nearly every president has violated war crime laws that the UN defines.

And since the UN has absolutely no power to dictate what laws we "have" to follow, it doesn't matter one bit. And besides, if you want to start calling out American presidents for violating UN rules, then you better be prepared to do so for the same rulers of the Arab nations you seem so bent on defending, who have done far worse things in much more numerous ways and in an openly public, defiant manner. Sure some presidents have done things that they shouldn't have, but I'd personally be much more concerned about countries where public torture is an accepted form of legal punishment, women aren't allowed to do anything without their husband's consent, and anyone not of the Islamic faith is openly persecuted.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:In modern day, Bush handled 911 and radical Islam VERY poorly

He's made some missteps, but hindsight is always 20/20. He generally made decisions that, based on the evidence he had, were in the best interests of our country and I don't fault him for that.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:for the sake of making those "terrorist states" our puppets in which we can profit from by wrongfully taking their resources like oil

First of all, our economy is dependent on oil, so going to war to protect our resources of it is not the far-out, illogical concept that liberal pundits (and especially nutcases like your Noam Chomsky) have made it out to be. That aside, however, the whole "blood for oil" talking point is really quite ridiculous. If all we wanted was their oil, we could have had it for much cheaper than the cost of the Iraq war and with much less conflict if we'd simply negotiated with Saddam Hussein for more oil exports. But then of course people like you would have jumped all over us for selling our soul to a terrible dictator for oil - basically, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Bush has sent our armed forces over the past several years to destroy nations and kill thousands of innocent civilians

Yes, that was the entire point of the Iraq war - to kill as many civilians as possible. The great evil dictator George Bush systematically plotted to slaughter as many innocent people as he could, and to that end, he sent over a hundred thousand American soldiers to carry out mass genocide and crush the Iraqi nation.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:( who weren't radical Islam "animals," as we've been told, since Al Queda and the like are very small minorities).

Not nearly as small as you'd think. And even if they are, why don't the massive majorities of alleged moderate Muslims that exist speak out against and revolt against those who have hijacked their religion and are using it to achieve their own nefarious ends?

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Look at nomorevictims.org, it is sick what our leaders are doing.

A bunch of sob stories about victims of accidental injury does not constitute an acceptable argument. I mean hey, if we're just tossing out websites as ways to make our arguments, you should go check out TheReligionOfPeace.com, a site that tracks incidences of radical Islamist terrorism around the world. Look at that and tell me that Muslim terrorists don't deserve your scorn and anger more than American soldiers, who are fighting and dying to help bring democracy and stability to the Iraqi people.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:We aren't eliminating radical Islam, we're giving those people more reasons to hate us and more excuses to be affiliated with terrorist groups.

Killing terrorists is indeed treating the symptoms of the problem rather than the underlying cause, but at least it's working in Iraq for now - we're starting to bring the troops home, violence in Iraq is on the decline, and things are looking up.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:In the words of Zack : "Wake up."

Been there and done that, but the conclusions that I came to probably aren't what Mr. de la Rocha was intending...

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Our foreign policy really is criminal and imperialistic, and the power-whores in charge really are parasites (Democrats and Republicans, both generally are full of crap). (Ron Paul, save us all)

Criminal - according to who, Saddam Hussein? Imperialistic - except that we're now beginning to pull out of Iraq. Parasites - welcome to politics. Ron Paul - good luck to Mr. Still-Polling-In-The-Single-Digits-Nationally, but let's be serious - he doesn't have a chance (not that Ron Paul would be able to do anything radical even if he did by some miracle win the election - he would still have a Congress that, regardless of whether it ends up being controlled by Republicans or Democrats, does NOT fall into the same category of libertarianism that he does).

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:And, yes, I am a fan of RATM

Nothing wrong with that - they're certainly acceptable and even fun on purely musical grounds.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Zack de la Rocha's lyrics really have changed my perspective on the world.

Really? You get your political advice and receive life-changing revelations from someone whose job is to entertain and sell records? Forgive me for sounding pretentious, but if it were me, I'd start looking to people with actual qualifications in fields that are apropos to the field.

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:I was among the ranks of the very Conservative until I listened to him and gave his lyrics a real listen and researched some of the points he made.

Right - I suppose you cross-checked them with works by Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Al Franken? :rolleyes:

voiceofthevoiceless wrote:I disagree with some of the things he says, but I believe he makes a very valid point here.

Well, anyone is allowed to make a point, and though I'd never suggest that the US is perfect (far from it, actually), Zack de la Rocha is certainly not anyone who is qualified in my mind to make suggestions as to the direction the country should take.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
-- Plato
Reply
Like

Essyne
Advanced Member
Essyne
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 01:34

12 Jan 2008, 01:06 #8

voiceofthevoiceless @ Jan 11 2008, 03:10 AM wrote: Bush has sent our armed forces over the past several years to destroy nations and kill thousands of innocent civilians ( who weren't radical Islam "animals," as we've been told, since Al Queda and the like are very small minorities). Look at nomorevictims.org, it is sick what our leaders are doing.

What would you have us do, voices? Would you have us leave Iraq and enable another "Vietnam" to occur? Because THAT would be the "[killing of] thousands of innocent civilians." I really would enjoy hearing your view on this, as you seem so well-informed about everything else. We are doing what we have to do in Iraq because no one else will do it.

As to our "sick" leaders, why not follow another, more peaceful banner? I'm sure that all of the other poor nations that we are "destroy[ing]" would be glad to have you. Our troops are risking their lives on a daily basis so that you can sit here and cry about how horrible the cause that they are dying for is.
Stealing, decieving, adultery; this is defilement. Not the eating of meat. -SUTTA NIPATA 242-
Reply
Like

Cloaked
Advanced Member
Cloaked
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 Sep 2007, 02:30

13 Jan 2008, 02:39 #9

Dimmick I strongly disagree with much of what you said, but holy shit that was an asskicking.
One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him. -Socrates
Reply
Like

dimmick
Advanced Member
dimmick
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 05:28

14 Jan 2008, 00:30 #10

I only wish I had more time to spend on the site to debate more, instead of just checking quickly like I usually do to watch for spammers, etc. Unfortunately, college work takes up an awful lot of my time, so I don't often get to jump into debates unless I see something that really fires me up.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."
-- Plato
Reply
Like