Berkeley, CA Facing Retribution for Anti-War View

If we put economic pressure on Berkeley due to the radical leftists they have on city council, the business that suffer will in turn put pressure on the city council by not re-electing the radicals. Support the boycott!

Retribution? How about comeuppance?

Which one of us misread this?

The USSC has ruled that the Freedom of Speech does not extend to yelling "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse.

(Actually, it does, but there are consequences. Even "words like conviction can turn in to a sentence")

That is and remains my question. The Taliban, to the best of my knowledge, has never attacked the US with military force. Bombing Afghan villages has occurred according to many sources. There have been significant Afghan civilian casualties. I don't buy the argument that they're 'collateral damage'. An immoral attack on us does not justify an immoral attack by us.

IF we find people who knowingly helped these 9-11 attackers, we should deal with them severely. No question about that. However, attacking a country 'cause GWB said so is no better than attacking Yugoslavia because WJC said so.

You say the Taliban is out to 'destroy the United States'. Prove it. I haven't seen the invading hordes, nor heard the Taliban say anything to make me believe they wish to see us destroyed.

One last thing. I have seen one group that does seem intent on destroying the American way of life. These guys scare the he!! out of me. They're your friendly neighborhood feds. A new 'Department of HomeLand Security' (reminiscent of 'Defend the Fatherland', eh?) , sweeping new powers to the federal agencies (the FBI or some other alphabet group is probably scanning this post),the push for a 'National ID', and the attitudes of blind faith in many American citizens. THAT worries me a lot more than some Taliban warrior in a mud hut in the Himalyas does.

Or, as Honest Abe Lincoln is reputed to have said, 'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.'

When I see evidence that points clearly to OBL (it hasn't been released to my knowledge) and that Afghanistan is indeed harboring OBL, I will support whatever measures are necessary to see justice rendered. BUT the evidence has not been presented to anyone. As I said earlier, we're doing this 'cause GWB said so! That's the problem.

Looking more closely at the text of the articles, it simply says, "The local VFW would support boycotting Berkeley if it comes up."

I used to live next to Berkeley and spent a lot of time there. This is a relatively small city (approx. 100,000 people), and most of its non-research/university economy depends on the restaurants and stores in the local area, which appeal to local students and those living in the surrounding area. There are no convention centers, and it's not a large tourist destination. Furthermore, there are no large malls or outlets that would attract large numbers of people from more distant parts of the SF/Bay area. As I remember, there is one large hotel that would hold the sort of high-profile conventions that would attract people from way out of town (the Claremont, as someone pointed out).

For those that are unfamiliar with the Berkeley city council, they have also declared the city to be a "nuclear free zone", and frequently pass various resolutions declaring their opposition to various US federal policies.

I am kind of curious how this will work and who will boycott them that is currently doing business with Berkeley-area entities. Are the nation's scientists going to refuse to publish papers with UC Berkeley scientists and refuse to give talks there? Are the nation's physicists going to refuse to visit Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories? Are computer companies going to refuse to deal with startups that are based in Berkeley? Are urban hipsters from SF and Oakland going to refuse to shop in the used bookstores, vintage clothing stores, and music stores of Berkeley? Are well-heeled suburbanites from Walnut Creek going to boycott the upscale restaurant Chez Panisse?

For me, personally, boycotting the city of Berkeley is akin to boycotting South Carolina for their Confederate Flag flap. Since I don't go to south carolina or think about it very much, the idea wouldn't even occur to me to "boycott" the place, or how I would do so. However, for many other people, they vacation in SC regularly and many blacks have family ties there, so one could see how it would have an effect. Neither of these things is true of Berkeley.

I'm surprised that Oakland, another part of Barbara Lee's district, hasn't been targeted for a boycott. This is a much larger city and more dependent on things like conventions, etc. But anyone who has visited Oakland knows that this is akin to kicking someone when they're down. :)

How can we find out who is thinking about utilizing the facilities in the fair city of Berzerkley??????? I too have been looking around the web

I use google but any good search engine will do it, and key words such as (convention, berkeley, 2002)or(meeting, berkeley, Claremont). And about a dozen other search strings. I then search all the results....Crippling their economy will take some work but it's the least I can do!

The next step is for the activist here to send them polite emails. These groups tend to repeat there meetings every month or year so its worth the effort.

"Although we respect their right to protest, we are behind the military's efforts in Afghanistan, 200 percent," said VFW Communications Director Jerry Newberry.

My pet peeve. Though I understand his sentiment - at least I think I do - I'm forced to ask whether that is 200% of a possible 10,000% or what?

When I see evidence that points clearly to OBL (it hasn't been released to my knowledge)

The next time I see the President I'll make sure he includes you in one of the intelligence meetings.

Thanks for the tips on possible ways of getting info and keywords to use!

I believe that getting the general business community out there up-in-arms is the best way of inducing some change in the political leadership, both in the City Council (that passes insipidly stupid proclimations) and in Congress (Barbara Lee).

It seems that you're caught in the Bill Clinton syndrome of needing courtroom level evidence in order to act. I think the statements made by Al Quaeda about more airplanes crashing into the US is enough evidence. This is clearly different from the Yugoslavia situation as Yugoslavia did NOTHING to the US. Clinton, Albright and their minions were leading the Muslim invasion of Europe and decided to bomb Yugoslavia in direct contraventin of international law. Clinton was not using US forces to defend the US. Bush is responding to an act of war perpetrated by a terrorist network that is supported by the Taliban.

When you write about Afghan civilians being killed my first reaction as a New Yorker is call me when the number reaches 5000. My second reaction is that German and Japanese civilians were in the line of fire during WWII but then as now we were at war with their government. Again, this is distinctly different from bombing Yugoslavia where the civilians were truly innocents under attack first from Albanian narco-terrorists and then NATO warplanes attacking in support of these terrorists. We, like Yugoslavia have the right to defend ourselves. In this case we just have the tools to do the job better.

Looking more closely at the text of the articles, it simply says, "The local VFW would support boycotting Berkeley if it comes up....snip

Constans- # 27

Thoughtful reply. Let me try and break some of it down. First let me say that boycotts are difficult and I’m not sure this one has legs. So far it might all be feel good venting. Time will tell.

For me, personally, boycotting the city of Berkeley is akin to boycotting South Carolina for their Confederate Flag flap. Since I don't go to south carolina or think about it very much, the idea wouldn't even occur to me to "boycott" the place, or how I would do so.

For non-locals I suggest you use your keyboard and urge "Others" to Boycott Berkeley. As I said in my post above. Vets, policemen, firemen, letter carriers can all stop eating Cliff bars or drinking Triple Rock Beer. If a just one buyer (or executive)at Albersons/ Safeway decides not to purchase Cliff Bars the impact will be significant (at least to Cliff Bars) Symbolic? Of course, but the press might pick it up! Then a travel agent might suggest a hotel outside of Berkeley for the group of physicist than will attend a symposium! That same physicist might suggest to his collogues that they eat at Jack London Square in Oakland rather than Spengers.

Plant Seeds my friend! Each and every member of FreeRepublic can help in this. Us locals can put Boots on the ground but we need help!

Are well-heeled suburbanites from Walnut Creek going to boycott the upscale restaurant Chez Panisse?

Dream here with me, OK? What if 20-30 Freepers were to join with 20 policeman, 20 letter carriers, 20 VFW members, 20 ex-New Yorkers, and 20 Firefighters freep Chez Panisse? We’re not ready for that today but it could happen if we build coalitions. The press would cover it and YES the word would spread….Then imagine that KSFO, Rush or Drudge or any of other notable conservatives highlighted the next freep? We’re you in the Bay Area when KSFO got 5,000 (IIRC), to Sacramento to protest MTBE? Think about 5,000 people on the narrow twisty road in front of the Claremont (grin)

Then imaging a Billboard in Walnut Creek saying:

BOYCOTT BERKELEY www.freerepublic.com & KSFO

Then, more funds are raised, and 2-3 other Billboards are purchased. Then people begin to think twice about spending money in Berkeley…

In short…dare to dream, but be willing to put in the work to make it happen!

I don't ask for courtroom level evidence, just for positive evidence. Why shouldn't the Administration put out for public display enough to convince all, including our middle eastern 'allies' that what we are doing is just? As I said before, doing it just 'cause GWB said so ain't enough.

I also have deep feelings about the deaths of the 5000( or whatever the actual number is) of innocent people in NY. I waish to extract justice from the people who organised, sponsored, and/or aided the terrorists that conducted this attack. However, I want to spare the innocent. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Final point:
The Japanese and German citizens of WWII actively supported their governments attacks on the world. They suffered terribly for that support. Also, that was a legally declared war, this is a presidential action which is, IMHO, unconstitutional.

The evidence probably hasn't been presented because it would damage national security by revealing intelligence collection and analysis methods.

It's real nice to see that you're all broken up over the deaths of a few Afghanis while being utterly indifferent to the deaths of 5000 people. Go home to Afghanistan on a one-way ticket. You're no American, you're just another scumbag collaborator. People like you will get us all killed.

I disagree with your analysis of the evidence against OBL. The Administration needs to show not just the American people, but the world enough evidence to justify their actions. Attacking based on 'secret information' leaves them open to questions such as the ones I pose. Not to mention the precedent for attacking whatever the administration decides is terrorism where ever it's found. Suppose they find 'terrorism' in the Mormon church in say Ogden, Utah. Would you want to see the evidence then? But, showing you the evidence might threaten national security! Can't have that now can we.

As I have stated repeatedly on this forum, the deaths of the innocents in NY was a terrible tragedy. The people who supported, aided, and abetted the attackers should be punished. That does not, IMHO, include bombing 3rd world farmers in mud huts. Killing them puts our government on the same level as the people who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. That should concern any true patriot.

Questions regarding my feelings towards my country are irrelevant to this discussion, but I would venture to say that I have done as much as anyone on this forum through military service. Nuff said. However, I see it as part of my oath to my country to question the governments unconstitutional actions until and unless they are corrected or ended.
You may return to grazing in the sheep pasture.

...the precedent for attacking whatever the administration decides is terrorism where ever it's found.

Three building were attacked and thousands are dead. Look at the actions and words of the Taliban (such as the threats of further airline hijack attacks). The cat's been out of the bag for weeks. What else do you need?

But, showing you the evidence might threaten national security! Can't have that now can we.

Indifference to national security is what got us into this crisis. It is truly insane to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

Killing them puts our government on the same level as the people who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. That should concern any true patriot.

Actually it doesn't. We'll continue to target their military and be sorry later over the civilians that the Taliban put in the way as human shields like Saddam Hussein did. You care more about them than you do about American citizens who have died and whose lives are in danger every day that we choose to cherry pick our targets and stress out over collateral damage. Where do you get off calling yourself a patriot? You obviously don't care about protecting American lives, you'd rather sit and do nothing while our people get wiped out.

Just as an aside here, the NYC and Pentagon TERRORIST ATTACKS are just that -- they're not "tragedies", "crimes", "incidents", or whatever watered-down crap that the liberals like you are calling them this week.

The calls for evidence are not done in the interest of protecting innocent people. They're just an attempt to slow roll the war effort and make our country more vulnerable to attack by making us display to the world that we are weak and indecisive in the face of grave danger. You're not fooling anybody.

me:
...the precedent for attacking whatever the administration decides is terrorism where ever it's found.

you
Three building were attacked and thousands are dead. Look at the actions and words of the Taliban (such as the threats of further airline hijack attacks). The cat's been out of the bag for weeks. What else do you need?

You have taken my sentence out of context,which is really dirty pool or you missed my point entirely. The point is this:
Suppose ANY administration decides the NRA is a terrorist group. They could, under the precedent set by this administration, use 'whatever means necessary' to attack the 'terrorists'. The concern is for freedom.

me:
But, showing you the evidence might threaten national security! Can't have that now can we.

you:
Indifference to national security is what got us into this crisis. It is truly insane to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

I think the 'crisis' was brought on more by a meddling and ineffective foreign policy than by 'indifference to national security'. I think that had the INS or FBI been more on the ball, this attack could have been prevented. If we had allowed the people on board the planes to be armed, the attacks would have at least been mitigated, if not thwarted. But the FAA (another federal alphabet agency) has seen to it that our airline passengers and crews, when hijacked, are nothing more than victims.

We also 'suspect' Iraq in this attack. Bombing them for the last 10+ years has really proven to be effective, hasn't it?(THAT"S SARCASM). So we REPEAT that policy and now that will cause all terrorists in the world fear us. Meanwhile, the terrorists continue to train and prepare in those areas of the world we aren't bombing. While the bombs kill civilians, which helps the terrorists to recruit more people. The only result will be an unending war against an undefined enemy. Brilliant strategy for the state, not so good for people who wish to live free.

me:
Killing them puts our government on the same level as the people who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. That should concern any true patriot.

you
Actually it doesn't. We'll continue to target their military and be sorry later over the civilians that the Taliban put in the way as human shields like Saddam Hussein did. You care more about them than you do about American citizens who have died and whose lives are in danger every day that we choose to cherry pick our targets and stress out over collateral damage. Where do you get off calling yourself a patriot? You obviously don't care about protecting American lives, you'd rather sit and do nothing while our people get wiped out.

You ignore that none of the terrorists was an Afghan and that continuing to kill Afghan civilians will help the terrorists to recruit new terrorists. You infer that I care more for the Afghans than I do my own countrymen and that I don't care about our people and that I am no patriot. You obviously have no clue as to what I am about or the reasons I address this issue. Perhaps if you weren't such a sheep to GWB you'd understand and reason better.

Bombing people at night in their homes IS a form of terrorism. If you'd ever been in a house that's been bombed, you'd understand that. Making certain we're attacking the correct target is imperative in this situation. Saying 'sorry' after you've killed off someones family or friends isn't going to make them love you. They'll get even. Especially the Muslims. It's that eye for an eye thing. And that sets us up for future attacks.

You:
Just as an aside here, the NYC and Pentagon TERRORIST ATTACKS are just that -- they're not "tragedies", "crimes", "incidents", or whatever watered-down crap that the liberals like you are calling them this week.

Seeing the attacks which killed 5000 or so of my countrymen as a tragedy does not make me a liberal. I think the families of the victims would think it's pretty tragic,also.

you:
The calls for evidence are not done in the interest of protecting innocent people. They're just an attempt to slow roll the war effort and make our country more vulnerable to attack by making us display to the world that we are weak and indecisive in the face of grave danger. You're not fooling anybody.

The need for evidence here is as great if not greater than the need for evidence in a murder trial. We have to convince not a jury of 12, but a jury of 6 billion that we are responding in a reasonable fashion. And the only evidence of Afghan or ObL involvement that I've seen publicly is that GWB 'said so'.

You, and many others here, have confused your desire for justice with a thirst for revenge. That leads to the kinds of knee jerk reactions that will put the freedoms of our entire nation at risk. I want to see the evidence that says why. Then, I will seek justice.