PDA

View Full Version : CNN Airs Sniper-Snuff Video



mayagaia
10-22-06, 02:09 PM
From the perspective of a WWII generation- for CNN to provide terrorists the propaganda weapon of showing American troops getting snuffed by snipers and even presenting it against a montage of memorial portraits of our servicemen killed in Iraq..is absolutely beyond the pale of providing aide and comfort to the enemy in the midst of a war. The stunning aftermath of Marvin Kalb congratulating the network for boldly giving America the truth about the war plus the significant support given to his opinion by other media-convinces me that there are allot of Americans who so despise Bush- that they'd like to see us lose our battles overseas.

draqon
10-22-06, 02:14 PM
From the perspective of a WWII generation- for CNN to provide terrorists the propaganda weapon of showing American troops getting snuffed by snipers and even presenting it against a montage of memorial portraits of our servicemen killed in Iraq..is absolutely beyond the pale of providing aide and comfort to the enemy in the midst of a war. The stunning aftermath of Marvin Kalb congratulating the network for boldly giving America the truth about the war plus the significant support given to his opinion by other media-convinces me that their are allot of Americans who so despise Bush- that they'd like to see us lose our battles overseas.

geese dude next thing you know...someone's dog will be peeing one mile away from a war memorium and the act will be condemned as for the enemy and against the country. People should have the right to show and see whatever they please to see, USA trashed all those millions on Iraq instead of investing it in something like USA needs, like space industry. So when US troop gets shot down on CNN and Bush is here saying his shit about how America had won the war against terrorism, people will see what this war really is. We deserve to see the truth, as horrible as it is, and the government has no right to take away that right from us. What good is this democracy than, whan the government can always blame and cover up something so that people do not see what is really happening?

cato
10-22-06, 02:19 PM
it was/is an unnecessary war. why should we all band together to support the unnecessary death of thousands?

madanthonywayne
10-22-06, 05:41 PM
Who cares whether or not it was, in your opinion, necessary. No US news program should be airing enemy propaganda.

geodesic
10-22-06, 05:54 PM
Ideally, they'd broadcast no propaganda, enemy or otherwise, but nothings perfect.

ripleofdeath
10-22-06, 06:12 PM
From the perspective of a WWII generation- for CNN to provide terrorists the propaganda weapon of showing American troops getting snuffed by snipers and even presenting it against a montage of memorial portraits of our servicemen killed in Iraq..is absolutely beyond the pale of providing aide and comfort to the enemy in the midst of a war. The stunning aftermath of Marvin Kalb congratulating the network for boldly giving America the truth about the war plus the significant support given to his opinion by other media-convinces me that there are allot of Americans who so despise Bush- that they'd like to see us lose our battles overseas.

i find your perspective quite odd.

what do you think of all the footage, hours and hours of people and buildings being blown to peices.
men women and children (civilians) dead...

war is hell get over it or stop following it.

or step up to your own plate and start lobying your government for propper medical (psychiatric and physical) support, treatment and care for military once they have left or been discharged or released from the military.

cato
10-22-06, 06:43 PM
Who cares whether or not it was, in your opinion, necessary. No US news program should be airing enemy propaganda.
if there was some good that could come of the war, I would be for trying to win it. however, it is a pointless war, why shouldn't we know the truth about it? its all about how much evil you are willing to do, in order to do good. if the war was worth something, then I would say "sure, pull the wool over the eyes of Americans". there is no good in this war, at least we can learn how much war sucks.

TimeTraveler
10-22-06, 06:50 PM
From the perspective of a WWII generation- for CNN to provide terrorists the propaganda weapon of showing American troops getting snuffed by snipers and even presenting it against a montage of memorial portraits of our servicemen killed in Iraq..is absolutely beyond the pale of providing aide and comfort to the enemy in the midst of a war. The stunning aftermath of Marvin Kalb congratulating the network for boldly giving America the truth about the war plus the significant support given to his opinion by other media-convinces me that there are allot of Americans who so despise Bush- that they'd like to see us lose our battles overseas.

It's war. Why shouldnt we see it? We SHOULD see how war really is. It's not a game.

I don't think anything is wrong with seeing the reality of war, it's whats missing, because in the past when there were wars, everyone saw the bloody details on TV. Now we are all censored and watered down to the point where war looks like a movie.

TimeTraveler
10-22-06, 06:51 PM
Who cares whether or not it was, in your opinion, necessary. No US news program should be airing enemy propaganda.

How is it enemy propaganda? Either way, the US news should show the war, this includes the bloody details. War is disgusting, bloody, and violent, it's something that is a fact of the reality and nature of war. Why should we hide that reality ?

Pheegen
10-22-06, 08:22 PM
Timetraveler, what on earth are you talking about saying that in the past they showed more of the gore on TV?
Mate, war movies of the past didn't even have blood when someone was shot, as that was too much even for cinema, let alone prime time news.

And, Yes, they should show it all. The postives in opening up peoples eyes to the sheer obscenity of war far out way any negatives in what some are calling 'enemy propagander'.

mayagaia
10-23-06, 02:08 PM
The issue is not some abstract philosophical ethic as to whether or not a citizenry should be subjected to graphic documentation of the blood and gore of war but the whether such reportage helps or hurts our cause of defeating the terrorist enemy- period. Apparently the terrorist producing this snuff-video believe it will help them and hurt us, which brings into question which side are those who advocate this particular propaganda are on?

It is obvious that the far-left mindset is in utter denial that the terrorist leadership has said over and over that propaganda is half the weaponry they need to recruit jihadists and demoralize the American enemy. To claim that the public's right to know every graphic detail of the horror of war trumps the damage such enemy propaganda does to homefront morale and more importantly to the troops whose lives are put at even greater risk is despicable and makes evident the degree of ideological fantaticm motivating the anti-Bush jihadis.

In the twisted convictions of "peace activists" any "anti-war" tactic is justified no matter how directly harmful to the war effort by the demented rationale that it is moral, politically correct and even patriotic to work to end the evil of "war" and the killing of innocents. They refuse to recognize that terrorists are committed to waging jihad and killing Americans whether we fight offensively or cower in defense and they embrace a fantasy paradigm where the world could live in peace if only Bush stopped waging war.

spidergoat
10-23-06, 02:12 PM
There are some things that we as citizens should not know about. Thank God for Fox telling us the Right Things to Believe. Bush should ban CNN and throw all non-Fox reporters in Gulag.

baumgarten
10-23-06, 02:30 PM
It's war. Why shouldnt we see it? We SHOULD see how war really is. It's not a game.

I don't think anything is wrong with seeing the reality of war, it's whats missing, because in the past when there were wars, everyone saw the bloody details on TV. Now we are all censored and watered down to the point where war looks like a movie.

We (meaning the general public) haven't had the opportunity to see what war might even remotely be like since around midway through this century. The first war that one could truly call televised was Vietnam. The result of images and news of war coming back to the public in almost real time was public outrage at something that was actually rather mild when compared to the widespread daily atrocities of World War II. With no support from the homeland, the United States military had no hope of winning the war even if they could have gained a strategic advantage.

This is the reason why war shouldn't be televised. Unless it's an overwhelming victory like the Gulf War (something that was wholly unprecedented in US military history), the public, mainly composed of pussies who faint at the sight of blood like you and me, will quickly condemn it, and the war will be lost.

Nickelodeon
10-23-06, 02:46 PM
Strange argument. What if the news networks decided that instead of televising the live pictures of the WTC attacks, they simply went to a desk somewhere and reported that the towers were struck and fell over. In other news.....

baumgarten
10-23-06, 02:49 PM
I thought we were talking about the Iraq War not 9/11.

Nickelodeon
10-23-06, 02:53 PM
It extends to the truth about what the World is really like.

baumgarten
10-23-06, 02:56 PM
If your point is about what the world is really like, then you should acknowledge people's perceptions of the world, which are also part of it.

You can't "win" a terrorist attack. On the other hand, if you're trying to make a concerted effort to achieve victory in a war, then you want the media in your country to either be silent or supportively propagandistic. Most people don't understand how horrible war actually is, and when they find out, they react with shock and disgust -- which is not the mood you want to convey if you're actually intent on winning.

Nickelodeon
10-23-06, 03:06 PM
I do not agree. War is hell. Its nasty, it's terrible. Therefore if you are going to go to war you better take the damn thing seriously, and KNOW the consequences. If we turn a blind eye to the horrors of War you simply make the idea more palatable.

People are less likey to question the reasons for going to war if they are unaware of how horrible it really is. Have all other options been explored? Is this the only option we have? I am not a pacifist, but going to war is too damn important a decision to turn a blind eye to.

And when that War is being undertaken, the Government (who act on behalf of the people) cannot simply turn round and say "dont worry, we will sort everything, just get back to your life (and keep voting for us)".

If a War is just then there is NO reason to shield it from the people. Otherwise you are simply claiming that you know better than the people (or worse still, trying to stifle voices that disagree with you).

baumgarten
10-23-06, 05:20 PM
Well, since you question who knows better, who does know better what war is? The people or the military?

If the people, especially our coddled people, get involved in decision making during a war, we will lose the war. Period. If winning the war isn't that important, fine. But then why was it started in the first place?

Roman
10-23-06, 05:24 PM
From the perspective of a WWII generation- for CNN to provide terrorists the propaganda weapon of showing American troops getting snuffed by snipers and even presenting it against a montage of memorial portraits of our servicemen killed in Iraq..is absolutely beyond the pale of providing aide and comfort to the enemy in the midst of a war. The stunning aftermath of Marvin Kalb congratulating the network for boldly giving America the truth about the war plus the significant support given to his opinion by other media-convinces me that there are allot of Americans who so despise Bush- that they'd like to see us lose our battles overseas.

I agree completely. The media should only air footage that shows the US in a good light. The media should just stop reporting altogether and make up stories. Fiction's much nicer than reality, anyway.

spidergoat
10-23-06, 05:24 PM
Nonsense, people knew the war in the Pacific during WWII was brutal, and I think they would support it all the same. It's just that it's difficult to see your soldiers getting picked off in an occupation that was ill-planned and unnecessary.

Roman
10-23-06, 05:26 PM
Well, since you question who knows better, who does know better what war is? The people or the military?

If the people, especially our coddled people, get involved in decision making during a war, we will lose the war. Period. If winning the war isn't that important, fine. But then why was it started in the first place?

Wars that we have the guts for are the only wars worth fighting.

baumgarten
10-23-06, 05:42 PM
Wars that we have the guts for are the only wars worth fighting.

Well, shit. I guess if aliens invade, we could always challenge them to a game of basketball.

Roman
10-23-06, 05:44 PM
Well, shit. I guess if aliens invade, we could always challenge them to a game of basketball.

Or Hell's Legions.
Is the threat of alien invasion a plausible reason to kill people?

[edit]
Americans are spineless cowards anywhere. A bunch of bankers and businessmen with a mercenary army. Leave war to real warriors.

spidergoat
10-23-06, 05:51 PM
Right. If Americans really believed what they say, they would be over in Iraq with their pickups and guns overwhelming the terrorists with their numbers. I bet there are more guns in Idaho than in all of Iraq.

baumgarten
10-23-06, 05:54 PM
Or Hell's Legions.
Is the threat of alien invasion a plausible reason to kill people?

Well, what do you have in mind exactly? Accuse someone of being an alien sympathizer and kill them? Accuse someone of being an alien and kill them? Scream "ALIENS HATE OUR FREEDOM!" and, without further explanation, kill them? Kill a Mexican?


Americans are spineless cowards anywhere. A bunch of bankers and businessmen with a mercenary army. Leave war to real warriors.

You have to hand it to the government for getting away with as much as they have when even their own mindset resembles, "o shit we almost lost a single battle im scared!!11 roflchopterz" Add the inarticulateness of the president and the constant distraction of all those smooth-skinned, revealingly dressed pages and you've got a real accomplishment in the face of adversity. They ought to celebrate by hosting a publicly funded bipartisan circle-jerk.

LeeDa
10-23-06, 06:07 PM
Arrrrrgh, the aliens are invading arrrrrgh.

terryoh
10-24-06, 02:34 AM
From the perspective of a WWII generation- for CNN to provide terrorists the propaganda weapon of showing American troops getting snuffed by snipers and even presenting it against a montage of memorial portraits of our servicemen killed in Iraq..is absolutely beyond the pale of providing aide and comfort to the enemy in the midst of a war. The stunning aftermath of Marvin Kalb congratulating the network for boldly giving America the truth about the war plus the significant support given to his opinion by other media-convinces me that there are allot of Americans who so despise Bush- that they'd like to see us lose our battles overseas.

Get the hell out of here with that!

So the news is only supposed to show the good scenes? Where is the reality in that? Showing a bunch of US soldiers getting sniped isn't enemy propaganda or liburul media being anti-American.

In fact, showing that stuff is important, because it shows the harsh reality of the war in Iraq.

People like you are the ones would've chosen to hide all those gruesome photos of Vietnam thanks to us Americans. People like you are the ones who would've chosen to hide all the pictures and videos of the poor Japanese who were scarred for life after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

None of that is propaganda. It's just showing the truth. What good is news if it ONLY displays one side of the story?

If we were to hide the bad and only show the good, what would be the difference between American media and, say, North Korean media? Or Iranian media? Or Chinese media? NOTHING. There would be no difference. What makes us better than their media is that we have the freedom and CHOICE to watch both the good and the bad of our great country.

People like you support dictatorial spins and lies in media.

mayagaia
10-24-06, 09:07 AM
Showing a bunch of US soldiers getting sniped isn't enemy propaganda or liburul media being anti-American.

People like you are the ones would've chosen to hide all those gruesome photos of Vietnam thanks to us Americans. People like you are the ones who would've chosen to hide all the pictures and videos of the poor Japanese who were scarred for life after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

None of that is propaganda. It's just showing the truth. What good is news if it ONLY displays one side of the story?

Right- The terrorist's are producing and promoting the sniper and beheading snuff videos not to help in recruiting jihadis and demoralizing their American enemy but simply to provide an unbiased truth about the reality of war.

All those gruesome photos of Vietnam were a primary reason we lost the war in Vietnam and now CNN went a step beyond by airing pictures that were made by the terrorist enemy with the specific intention of demoralizing our U.S. troops and citizens.

If you are too dense to recognize this as propaganda is pathetic but CNN is guilty of the greater sin since they aren't equally stupid but deliberately chose to help the enemy cause. To repeat the bottom line- why do you think the terrorists want to promote this snuff-video? Duh!

terryoh
10-24-06, 10:33 PM
Right- The terrorist's are producing and promoting the sniper and beheading snuff videos not to help in recruiting jihadis and demoralizing their American enemy but simply to provide an unbiased truth about the reality of war.

HUH? Does watching that stuff make you want to become a terrorist or does it make you hate terrorism more? If it's the former, stop watching the news. Any intelligent and mature viewer would understand that watching our brave soldiers getting sniped is a gruesome reality that we must face, and should, in fact, make us want to eliminate the terrorists even more.

Besides, showing our soldiers getting sniped isn't promoting anything. There is a difference between what CNN shows and what the terrorists produce in their own garages. If you fail to make the distinction, please stay out of current affairs and politics until you can actually handle it like the big boys do.


All those gruesome photos of Vietnam were a primary reason we lost the war in Vietnam and now CNN went a step beyond by airing pictures that were made by the terrorist enemy with the specific intention of demoralizing our U.S. troops and citizens.

In other words, you want to spin what the media shows and ignore all the bad stuff that goes on in the world? As I said before, if that's the way you feel, what's the difference between our media and Iranian or North Korean media? They do the exact same thing. They don't show the bad to their people, only the good.

Unlike you, I don't want to lie to the American public. I think they're strong and intelligent enough to take the BAD and the GOOD that comes out of our foreign policy. You, of course, think otherwise and prefer insulting the American public and dumbing them down with daisies, roses, sunshine, and a beautiful cherry on top.


If you are too dense to recognize this as propaganda is pathetic but CNN is guilty of the greater sin since they aren't equally stupid but deliberately chose to help the enemy cause. To repeat the bottom line- why do you think the terrorists want to promote this snuff-video? Duh!

Look in the mirror first.

You don't see the futility in your argument?

Answer me this, since you choose to ignore most of my points anyway:

DO YOU CHOOSE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BY SHOWING ONLY THE GOOD AND HIDING ALL THE BAD NEWS (LIKE THE NORTH KOREANS DO) OR DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AMERICA IS SMART ENOUGH TO SEE BOTH THE GOOD AND THE BAD?

Answer me that. I already know your answer, but I want you to personally insult the intelligent Americans on this site like you want to do.

spidergoat
10-24-06, 11:15 PM
I suppose the counter to that is the airing of videos starring US soldiers kicking ass. Look on Youtube, that stuff is common there.

te jen
10-25-06, 11:04 AM
War - if you can't stand to look at it then you shouldn't be paying for it or voting for it.

spidergoat
10-25-06, 11:23 AM
OK, I'm not going to pay any more taxes.

mayagaia
10-25-06, 05:32 PM
HUH? Does watching that stuff make you want to become a terrorist or does it make you hate terrorism more? If it's the former, stop watching the news. Any intelligent and mature viewer would understand that watching our brave soldiers getting sniped is a gruesome reality that we must face, and should, in fact, make us want to eliminate the terrorists even more...Besides, showing our soldiers getting sniped isn't promoting anything.


There are two words you do not seem to understand the definition of.
Propaganda: media content that recruits your cause and damages your enemy.
Terrorism: a tactic of guerilla warfare that employs physical and psychological terror indiscriminately against both civilian and superior military targets while finding refuge within a civilian population.

Put the two together- Terrorist Propaganda as in CNN airing a terrorist snuff video.

At the risk of overloading your brain with logic...the recruiting component of the propaganda is aimed at the millions of Muslim youths who watch CNN's global network already convinced that it is a good thing to kill the "evil Americans". A video of the supposed "evil Americans" being shot by freedom fighters inspires them to join the jihad and kill some Americans too.

The psychological terror component of the propaganda is aimed at Americans- the great majority of whom are poignantly aware of the horrors of war and naturally react with fear, weariness and depression watching graphic scenes of our troops getting killed. Of course this makes us "want" to eliminate the terrorists even more but the terrorists know that by keeping up a relentless campaign the human inclination is to do what the French would do- surrender.


You, of course, think otherwise and prefer insulting the American public and dumbing them down with daisies, roses, sunshine, and a beautiful cherry on top.

To argue that the alternative policy to not showing terrorist snuff propaganda is- "insulting the American public and dumbing them down with daisies, roses, sunshine, and a beautiful cherry on top." is simply bogus as evidenced by the ample amount of realistic coverage the war is afforded.

spidergoat
10-25-06, 06:07 PM
I think the danger of not showing a realistic picture of what's happening in Iraq is much more dangerous than showing it.

The scenes of US soldiers getting shot could have propaganda value in OUR favor as well. It might evoke sympathy to see them getting murdered in cold blood. It might provoke anger in Americans and thus more support for the war.

Aljazeera shows much worse stuff. The con outrage at CNN is just a continuation of their war against the media and truth in general.

mayagaia
10-27-06, 12:24 PM
I think the danger of not showing a realistic picture of what's happening in Iraq is much more dangerous than showing it.

The scenes of US soldiers getting shot could have propaganda value in OUR favor as well. It might evoke sympathy to see them getting murdered in cold blood. It might provoke anger in Americans and thus more support for the war.

Spidergoat- You're simply repeating the same dubious point already made:


HUH? Does watching that stuff make you want to become a terrorist or does it make you hate terrorism more? If it's the former, stop watching the news. Any intelligent and mature viewer would understand that watching our brave soldiers getting sniped is a gruesome reality that we must face, and should, in fact, make us want to eliminate the terrorists even more.


Just wondering if most of your 8000+ posts actually make an original observation?

spidergoat
10-27-06, 01:47 PM
Propaganda: media content that recruits your cause and damages your enemy.
Could it be argued that CNN was reporting ON propaganda, not simply passing it on for propaganda purposes? Didn't they edit out the most shocking part, and thus eliminate it's intent?

They also report about political ads. Does a story about a political ad constitute an ad itself?

GeoffP
10-27-06, 02:35 PM
Interesting position, Spider: but does al-Jazeera report on US soldiers hammering islamic terrorists?

Geoff

spidergoat
10-27-06, 02:46 PM
I think so. They report everything they can get their hands on.

spidergoat
10-27-06, 04:21 PM
http://web.archive.org/web/20040623032237/http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Ashcroft's Department of Justice published parts of this Al Quida training manual.

What's the difference between that and what CNN aired?

crazy151drinker
10-28-06, 12:34 AM
If they had Vietnam style reporters in WWII we would have quit the war in the first month. The current stuff that we see in nothing compared to the all out Slaughter of WWI and WWII.

How many troops died at Gettysburg? 50,000?? If that was live would the North have continued the Civil War?

Reporters and Camera crews should be banned from all war zones. Reporters become nothing but slanted tools for the Media's opinion on how things should be done.

crazy151drinker
10-28-06, 12:41 AM
DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AMERICA IS SMART ENOUGH TO SEE BOTH THE GOOD AND THE BAD?


No.

Do you think the Terrorists show their recruits videos of fellow Terrorists getting shredded by American troops? Of course not! Its not good for Morale! Reality it may be but no one is going to sign the dotted line.

You have two ways to win a war: Attrition and Perception. You either kill all of the enemy or convince them that they cannot win (Many times a combination of the two). The N. Viet used and now the Terrorists/Insurgents/Whatever are using the Perception game to win. Take away the Media and they have no chance of winning.

Yes, sometimes Ignorance is Bliss.

Prince_James
10-28-06, 02:51 AM
I completely agree with crazy151drinker here.

te jen
10-28-06, 06:48 AM
The followup video is available online and uncut. Pretty sad.

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/islamic_army_in_iraq_releases_new_sniper_video_jub a_2_Oct_23_2006.html

mayagaia
10-28-06, 09:52 AM
Ashcroft's Department of Justice published parts of this Al Quida training manual.
What's the difference between that and what CNN aired?
and...........
(in your answer to question by Geoff- but does al-Jazeera report on US soldiers hammering islamic terrorists?

I think so- they publish anything they can get their hands on.

Your opinions seem to originate from the same level of loony illogic as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
The difference between reporting on an Al Qaeda training manual and CNN airing terrorist snuff propaganda is the devastatingly greater psychological impact seeing our guys getting whacked has compared to reading about it.

So you think Al Jazeera reports everything- like all the schoolteachers and children that are getting blown up by Islamists? How about posting a citation where we can read an example of Al Jazeera publishing anything that would be considered demoralizing to the Jihadist and supportive of the U.S. troops?

spidergoat
10-28-06, 04:46 PM
It sounds like your idea of fairness is for the media to publish propaganda for both sides, but it's about the facts on the ground. You misinterpret fact as propaganda. The reason is your inablity to accept the truth when it doesn't fit the predetermined plan and worldview. Your side is so caught up in a fervor of partisan ideology that anyone presented a truly balanced view is attacked in a way that would make Senator McCarthy proud.

When Iraqis open a school, that is good news that seems to justify Bush's actions, but attacks and bombs tell me more about how the war is going. It doesn't much matter how many schools are opened if it's not safe to walk there. Maybe there isn't much good news, because there really isn't much good news.

The CNN reports are important, because they tell me that snipers are operating against our soldiers at will. This isn't a sustainable position for our troops, this isn't a grand offensive like D-Day or Iwo Jima, this is driving around like policemen in the middle of a gang war, and getting picked off like flies.

You think too little of the American people, that information should be kept from them, that they can't judge how a piece of film could be used as propaganda, skills that many learn in school, (which you don't think the government should pay for).

mayagaia
10-29-06, 12:27 PM
Spider: Your recent comments are so muddled in contralogical argument that I am really at a loss to relate any of them to the issue.
I note that the opportunity that I presented to you to provide a coherent response- viz a link to a single instance where Al Jazerra published anything demoralizing to the terrorists has gone unanswered.

spidergoat
10-29-06, 01:15 PM
Al-Zarqawi killed in air strike (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/036F8D00-00D5-4FCA-A378-027C9E4BA23E.htm)

mayagaia
10-29-06, 03:15 PM
Spider: OK- that is a coherent example of Al Jazzera having a policy of publishing straight news in the English edition but of course they follow up with one of their other policies of airing any propaganda they are given by the terrorists.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/00A5BE42-F85B-4C6B-AC05-ABFBD6730D7A.htm

Aljazeera airs al-Baghdadi audiotape
In an audiotape broadcast by Aljazeera, a purportedly major figure in the Iraqi uprising has said the killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, will strengthen fighters' determination.

I could not confirm that the articles like the one you linked to in the English edition website appear in the Arabic edition which goes to my original question.

spidergoat
10-29-06, 03:45 PM
Why isn't propaganda news? Could a piece of propaganda be aired as part of reporting about the propaganda war? How tightly should the media be controlled, and do you see any danger at all in that?

mayagaia
10-30-06, 10:52 AM
Why isn't propaganda news? Could a piece of propaganda be aired as part of reporting about the propaganda war? How tightly should the media be controlled, and do you see any danger at all in that?

Of course we can address the issue from an entirely detached, progressive/philosophical perspective and say Jane Fonda had every right to pose on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapon and giggle as she pretended to shoot down American planes and the press had every right to widely cover the propaganda. Unfortunately that kind of freedom of the press and peoples right to know divided our nation and lost that war. WWII was carried out with a pragmatic policy of censorship which screened out Tokyo Rose- type enemy propaganda and showing pictures and real-time reporting on Allied casualties. The country stayed united and we won that war- after which we got back to an uncensored free information environment.

Isn't there a practical middle ground from these lessons so that we can have a wartime policy where American media are not utterly detached from the consequences of publishing material that is created by terrorists implicitly to demoralize their enemy and recruit Jihadists? I believe the answer depends on how seriously you take the threat the terrorist Jihad represents. If you believe our troops who are risking their lives every day deserve all the support we civilians can provide...then their safety as well as that of our homefront trump the right of the media to broadcast terrorist propaganda.

spidergoat
10-30-06, 11:11 AM
I thought we were defending freedom.

Vietnam wasn't lost because we allowed the anti-war message on the air, but was abandoned because enough Americans were tired of the lies and deaths. Forget Fonda, what about the millions of people protesting in Washington and cities all over the country? You can't get Americans to support an unpopular war without complete totalitarian control of media, which would be reprehensible. WWII was different, everyone knew what is was about and supported it.

Baron Max
10-30-06, 11:27 AM
WWII was different, everyone knew what is was about and supported it.

Oh, golly, Spider, that's absolutely, categorically false and untrue! The American people believed what the government told them and what the news media broadcast. The American people were not told of the horrendous casualties of the Normandy Invasion for weeks, even months! And by that time, the war was raging elsewhere.

No, Spider, you're absolutely wrong! And in this war, just like the Vietnam War, the media is pressuring the American people with their own agenda, and NOT providing an accurate picture of the war. I.e., they never, ever, provide coverage of the normal life in Baghdad ...which goes on in an almost normal fashion. No, they cover the violence because that's what sells advertising and newspapers!

World War II would not have continued, especially in the Pacific, if the media did what they're doing today and with the Vietnam war. The people would have been overwhelmed with the deaths and the violence.

Baron Max

Nickelodeon
10-30-06, 11:29 AM
life in Baghdad ...which goes on in an almost normal fashion.
How do you know this?

spidergoat
10-30-06, 11:31 AM
I think you yourself are a victim of this propaganda war. The normal aspects of life in Baghdad are irrelevent. The media covers the violence, because, guess what- THAT'S THE FREAKING STORY.

You are wrong that people would not support a war simply because of the level of casualties.

Baron Max
10-30-06, 11:38 AM
I think you yourself are a victim of this propaganda war. The normal aspects of life in Baghdad are irrelevent. The media covers the violence, because, guess what- THAT'S THE FREAKING STORY.

If the news media covered violence in the same way, about every area of the world, then I'd say 'Fine', but they don't! They focus on a few people's death as if it's horrendous, yet they say virtually nothing about the thousadns of deaths in places like Darfur or in central Africa. See? It's not the same, it's the media's intention to focus our attentions and further their own agenda.

Hell, if they covered the violence in NYC or LA as much as they cover it in Iraq, New York City and Los Angeles would seem like war zones or worse!


You are wrong that people would not support a war simply because of the level of casualties.

I think you give "the people" much too much credit, Spider!

Baron Max

Nickelodeon
10-30-06, 11:40 AM
yet they say virtually nothing about the thousadns of deaths in places like Darfur or in central Africa.If that were true, how do you know about it?

spidergoat
10-30-06, 11:59 AM
I think you give "the people" much too much credit, Spider!

That is the entire modern Republican philosophy in a nutshell.

spidergoat
10-30-06, 12:06 PM
Hell, if they covered the violence in NYC or LA as much as they cover it in Iraq, New York City and Los Angeles would seem like war zones or worse!

Except that they aren't finding dozens of young men's bodies at a time, tortured or beheaded, and they don't fish bodies out of the LA river every day.

Baron Max
10-30-06, 06:24 PM
..., and they don't fish bodies out of the LA river every day.

Naw, sorry, you're right. They only fish bodies out of the LA river every OTHER day. So ...yeah, it's not quite so bad, huh?

But, interestingly, isn't the population of Iraq about the same as the entire state of California? If so, then we should also check the murders in San Diego, San Francisco, ....all of the cities. Then maybe they would be pulling bodies out of rivers every day!

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-30-06, 07:03 PM
You could compare the deaths of coalition troops to California, but not Iraqi deaths, which are estimated at about 20,000 per month.

Baron Max
10-30-06, 07:17 PM
You could compare the deaths of coalition troops to California, but not Iraqi deaths, which are estimated at about 20,000 per month.

Geez, that's almost 700 Iraqis per fuckin' day?!!! Let's see, we're been there three years or so, right? there's 12 months in a year. So ...over the three years, so .....wow!

700 Iraqis killed per day, huh? That's a lot more than we killed in all of World War II .....maybe even counting World War I? Wow! :)

Seems like the news media would jump all over that for their broadcasts, do you think? I wonder why they don't? Geez, you dont suppose it's 'cause that number is so fuckin' wrong as to be laughable, do you? ...LOL!

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-30-06, 07:22 PM
Geez, that's almost 700 Iraqis per fuckin' day?!!! Let's see, we're been there three years or so, right? there's 12 months in a year. So ...over the three years, so .....wow!

700 Iraqis killed per day, huh? That's a lot more than we killed in all of World War II .....maybe even counting World War I? Wow! :)

Seems like the news media would jump all over that for their broadcasts, do you think? I wonder why they don't? Geez, you dont suppose it's 'cause that number is so fuckin' wrong as to be laughable, do you? ...LOL!

Baron Max

Even if it were the healthiest country in the world, you'd have around 300 deaths a day.

Baron Max
10-30-06, 07:27 PM
Even if it were the healthiest country in the world, you'd have around 300 deaths a day.

Oh, ya' mean just dying of old age, accidents and diseases are figured in to that number??? But, Sam, that ain't exactly the way he presented it, is it? Oh, wait, I see now .....he was attempting to shock people into becoming anti-war, huh? ...LOL!

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-30-06, 07:32 PM
Oh, ya' mean just dying of old age, accidents and diseases are figured in to that number??? But, Sam, that ain't exactly the way he presented it, is it? Oh, wait, I see now .....he was attempting to shock people into becoming anti-war, huh? ...LOL!

Baron Max

In other words, 700 more people dying everyday is not as far fetched as you seem to think it is. It means 2-3 people dying instead of every one, due to the war.

spidergoat
10-31-06, 11:05 AM
But Baron, how would you know the real situation in Iraq if you only consume media from pro-US propagandists?

spidergoat
10-31-06, 11:28 AM
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Anthony Shadid returns to Baghdad after a year away and finds only heartbreak and horror. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701487.html)


...I asked him whether it would become worse if the American military withdrew.

He looked at me for a moment without saying anything, as though he were a little confused.

"What could be worse?" he asked, knitting his brow...

"This is a civil war now," Harith Abdel-Hamid, a psychiatrist, had told me, trying to diagnose the madness. "When you see hundreds of people killed every day, corpses of people tortured in the streets every day, what else does it mean?"...

"Call it what you will," he said, "but it is a civil war."

mayagaia
10-31-06, 01:05 PM
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Anthony Shadid returns to Baghdad after a year away and finds only heartbreak and horror. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701487.html)

The Pulitzer Prize has become an award for predominantly anti-American and often completely fictitious "reporting".

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4534_0_3_0_C/

Washington Post reporter Dana Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for a story about CIA "secret prisons" in Europe that cannot be confirmed and appears to be essentially false.

and....

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/074155.php

Pulitzer Prize Given to Terrorists-

The Pulitzer Prize has been "Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities."

5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism.

Let's hear it now about how this is just informing Americans about the "truth"
about the horrors of war- never mind that it provides terrorists with great propaganda- oh- and incidentally also the "anti-war" (surrender) crowd too.

No question the situation in Iraq is brutal but what is needed is not endless exploitive expose of the problems but constructive support for a coherent policy and strategy that can win stability.

Baron Max
10-31-06, 01:12 PM
But Baron, how would you know the real situation in Iraq if you only consume media from pro-US propagandists?

We get occasional news shows about regular Iraqi life ...other than the constant violence that the news media likes to show. And I see people walking around the streets, drinkiing coffee in cafes, buy goods from the markets, enjoying a laugh on the streets with their friends, etc, etc.

Iraqi life is not all about cowering in horror and fear ....as they like to show on the news. That kind of show doesn't sell, the horror and violence is what sells, so we see much more of it ...often, on slow days, we see the same footage of explosions and violence over and over.

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-31-06, 01:30 PM
Both of you are delusional. Mayagaia's reponse is about the Pulitzer prize, and how photojournalists are bad because they get the inside story, and they aren't propagandistic enough. Oh, and those secret prisons (Bush admits CIA has secret prisons (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1734844.htm)), they don't exist.

Baron occaisionally sees people drinking coffee and thinks that means the war is going swell, and I guess that the violence shown is not really violence. Oh, and a parroting of Rumsfeld's statement about the looting, "they are showing the same vase getting stolen over and over".

Take the ideological blinders off, gentlemen. I have bested you in verbal combat, and your credibility is now nil.

Baron Max
10-31-06, 01:34 PM
I have bested you in verbal combat, and your credibility is now nil.

Oh, geez, ya' mean that you believe all of the bullshit propoganda that the news media dispenses?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-31-06, 01:43 PM
You are unable to consider any bad news about Iraq, because you equate it with propaganda. Thus you are unable to analyze the Iraq situation with any accuracy whatsoever. Go away.

Baron Max
10-31-06, 01:47 PM
I see the bad, Spider, but unlike you and others, I also temper it with what I've seen and know of the actual conditions in many areas of Iraq.

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-31-06, 02:13 PM
You see the bad? How would you get information of that sort?

Billy T
11-01-06, 04:08 AM
"they are showing the same vase getting stolen over and over"...Thanks, I had forgotten that Rumsfield statement, but I still prefer his: It is just a "hand full of thugs" causing trouble.

Good to have the main leader of the war effort with such clear undestanding of the issues. :rolleyes:

Baron Max
11-01-06, 06:33 AM
Thanks, I had forgotten that Rumsfield statement, but I still prefer his: It is just a "hand full of thugs" causing trouble.

Well, he's not far from being wrong. Most knowledgeable people estimate the number of insurgents at something between 2500 and 3000. With a population of about 12 million, that's about a "handfull", wouldn't you say?

Hell, in the USA, we have that many suspected and/or released-on-bail murderers out walking around the steets every day!

Baron Max

Billy T
11-01-06, 07:52 AM
... Most knowledgeable people estimate the number of insurgents at something between 2500 and 3000. ...Baron MaxI would question the "most knowledgeable" part, because if that were true they would all be dead in less tha a month, by official body counts of the insurgents killed. - Want to think your claim again? Or perhaps you think that "insurgents" are really "supper cats" with not 9, but 99 lives each? :D

Baron Max
11-01-06, 09:29 AM
I would question the "most knowledgeable" part, because if that were true they would all be dead in less tha a month, by official body counts of the insurgents killed. - Want to think your claim again? Or perhaps you think that "insurgents" are really "supper cats" with not 9, but 99 lives each? :D

I think ye're mixing up the members of the "insurgence" with those Iraqi militias who are just killing other Iraqis because their of a different faith ...sunnis versus shiites is NOT an insurgency, it's a civil conflict.

Baron Max

Billy T
11-01-06, 09:48 AM
I think ye're mixing up the members of the "insurgence" with those Iraqi militias who are just killing other Iraqis because their of a different faith ...sunnis versus shiites is NOT an insurgency, it's a civil conflict. Baron Max No - I was speaking of the fact that the number of "insurgents" reported killed each month by US and alied forces exceeds your total small number of insurgent. Your are trying to duck the illogical statement that you made by pointing to the much greater number of civil war deaths. Yes, that number is large, Perhaps 600,000 by the best, most-through study. - One that did not just report the deaths registered in offical records where few ever are.

In case you forgot, you said:

"Most knowledgeable people estimate the number of insurgents at something between 2500 and 3000"

I made fun of you and that by noting that is less than the number of "insurgents" killed very month* by US allied fire by suggested you think the "insurgents" are "super cats" with not 9, but 99 lives.

Face it - your statement is obviously stupid. (And not related to the civil war deaths, we agree.) We were and are speaking of the "insurgents" who are fighting the US and the US installed government. There are many more than 3000 of them as if there were not, they would all be dead in less than one month.
-----------------------------------
*In kindness to you, I will admit that most of the "insurgents" US reports killing are like the Viet Cong body bag counts. I.e. by definition, any male between 12 and 80 killed by US allied force was an "insurgent" just as any dead Vietmese male the US killed in this age range was a Viet Cong "gook" so pehaps if one only counted the real "insurgents" there may be only 40 or 50 thousand of them.

Baron Max
11-01-06, 09:52 AM
There are many more than 3000 of them as if there were not, they would all be dead in less than one month.)

You don't think that they might recruit and replace killed members????


Face it - you statement is obviously stupid.

Thank you. Your debating style is to be commended.

Baron Max

Billy T
11-01-06, 10:05 AM
You don't think that they might recruit and replace killed members???? Not with 100% being killed each month. - not only a tough sell but there are none alive to do the recruiting.

Your debating style is to be commended. Baron MaxThanks - I am glad you can at least recognize logical argument when it is presented to you.

Baron Max
11-01-06, 10:07 AM
Not with 100% being killed each month. - not only a tough sell but there are none alive to do the recruiting.

Have you ever heard of "days"? If they recruit enough over each day, then the coalition could keep killing 2000 insurgents a month and the number of insurgents could remain the same or even grow!

You don't think about things much before you post, do you.

Baron Max

Billy T
11-01-06, 10:22 AM
Have you ever heard of "days"? If they recruit enough over each day, then the coalition could keep killing 2000 insurgents a month and the number of insurgents could remain the same or even grow! ....Baron MaxI did not say the insurgents were killed only at the end of each month. they are killed every day, every hour etc - any time period you wish to name - it all comes down to same thing - if all get killed in the chosen time period, k, there are not any left in k to do the recruiting and it really is a tough job.

What actually happens , I think, is that at least 8 of every 10 the US forces kills is not an insurgent*, but of these 8 dead Iraqi, the are 80 close relatives (Iraq is not really a country as we know it in the West, but a set of large extended family caused by the normal practice of marrying a second cousin).

Perhaps 25% of these 80 close relatives are very close, brothers, fathers, sons, etc. and 10% are so angry that the decide to get even by becoming true insurgents. - Thus, every time US forces kill and "insurgent" two or three previously non-insurgents become an insurgent.

This is how US lost the battle for "hearts and minds" in Viet Nam and how it is losing it in Iraq today. When Saddam's Statue fell, 90% of the people were happy with the US help, now 90% want US out ASAP, so we will stop killing their brothers, husbands, etc. - forget about winning their hearts and minds - that opportunity is long gone.
------------------------------
*Some may have been firing at US forces when they were killed and still not be true "insurgents." - The US forces were firing at them, or may have done some intolerable thing (from their POV) like search their wife, speak to their daughter. etc. Some thing so serious (from their POV) that only death of the offending US man can bring justice.

Baron Max
11-01-06, 12:18 PM
..., now 90% want US out ASAP, so we will stop killing their brothers, husbands, etc.

We aren't the ones killing the Iraqi people ....it's the Iraqi people who are killing the Iraqi people! Where the hell have you been???

And we didn't "lose" the Vietnam War, the wimpy, lily-livered liberals of this great nation decided that we should tuck our tails and run like a bunch of whipped puppies! We weren't even allowed to bomb Hanoi or Haiphong harbor, for god's sake. How can anyone win a war if you're not permitted to fight it?

Baron Max

spidergoat
11-01-06, 01:13 PM
So Nixon and Kissenger are "lily-livered liberals"? Why don't you read Christopher Hitchen's book about Kissenger's war crimes? About how they could have ended the war sooner on the same terms it finally ended, but they chose not to.


Here is the secret in plain words. In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut both the talks themselves and the electoral strategy of Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. The tactic "worked," in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the "peace plank" on which the Democrats had contested it. In another way, it did not "work," because four years later the Nixon administration concluded the war on the same terms that had been on offer in Paris. The reason for the dead silence that still surrounds the question is that, in those intervening four years, some twenty thousand Americans and an uncalculated number of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians lost their lives. Lost them, that is to say, even more pointlessly than had those slain up to that point. The impact of those four years on Indochinese society, and on American democracy, is beyond computation. The chief beneficiary of the covert action, and of the subsequent slaughter, was Henry Kissinger.

Baron Max
11-01-06, 06:17 PM
No, Spider! The lily-livered liberals were the idiotic peace demonstrators and the news media who finally ended the fight. They didn't want us to win, they didn't want people dying, etc. So we pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnamese moved in and began to systematically killed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese people. Remember the "boat people"??

So the liberals forced the withdrawal to lessen the killing, yet made it even worse than it was before! See? It wasn't about the deaths, was it!

And the same is happening in Iraqi war ...they'll soon force us to withdraw, then the Muslims will be killing Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. And y'all will be perfectly happy ....'cause the media won't show any of it!

Baron Max

PS - that little shaded box is just one person's opinion, nothing more. You can believe it if you want to.

John99
11-01-06, 06:21 PM
How can anyone win a war if you're not permitted to fight it?

So what were we supposed to win?

Baron Max
11-01-06, 06:31 PM
So what were we supposed to win?

You don't know??? Protecting the South Vietnamese people from being taken over by Ho Chi Minh and his "almost communist" insurgents (or whatever the hell we choose to call 'em). We promised the South Vietnamese people we'd protect them ...then we reneged on that promise! The greatest, most powerful nation on Earth told them, "Sorry, but we don't want to help our friends no more ...bye!"

It's not much different to what's going on now in Iraq ....do we protect the Iraqi people as much as possible, or do we pull out and let the radical, violent militant groups and the terrorist insurgents take over the nation?

It'll be just like Vietnam if we pull out ....hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be killed, and the nation will be taken over by a Muslim dictatorship with Sharia(?) laws, etc.

Baron Max

John99
11-01-06, 06:36 PM
Oh ok, i would hate to think all those young Americans died for nothing.

Baron Max
11-01-06, 07:26 PM
Oh ok, i would hate to think all those young Americans died for nothing.

They died for nothing ONLY because they weren't allowed to win the fight/war! We were told to tuck our tails between our legs and run away from our friends and our promises to the South Vietnamese people.

And we're going to end up doing the same thing in Iraq ...because the military is not being given the chance to win the war. We won World War II because the soldiers all fought a war, and fought to win. In Iraq, it's just a political fuckin' game to the politicians as well as the American people.

Baron Max

Buffalo Roam
11-01-06, 08:44 PM
John99, only if we run and give up do those lives become wasted, the liberals did to us in Vietnam, and they are trying to do the same thing today with their cut and run policies.

Billy T
11-02-06, 07:45 AM
Oh ok, i would hate to think all those young Americans died for nothing.I regret this fact also, but Unlike Buffalo & Barron Max, I understand that Iraq never was a real country, and will not be one for many generations.

Iraq was an artificial construct of the English, intentionally putting three mutually hostile groups into one "country" so they could play one off against the other two and control its oil more easily.

Incidentally, what is now Kuwait was originally part of Iraq, but when the full oil reserve in that greater Iraq became known, the English split part off, called it Kuwait, and greatly reducing the Iraq coastline so only one English gun boat could control the oil flow from the smaller Iraq. Also this was done so Kuwait could be played off against Iraq, keeping oil cheaper for the English (all of the West) Saddam's was trying to be the "Lincoln of Iraq" and re-unite his country when he invaded the new state of Kuwait.

The basic reason why Iraq is not a "real country" is even deeper than this English "country-building" history. The people living there almost always marry a second cousin - have done so for nearly 1000 years. This makes for great extended families or "tribes." Everyone's loyalty is to their tribe, not some English construct called a "Iraq.". That is why, despite dozens of people knowing where Saddam was hiding during the many months after he was deposed, not one turned him in. To do so would be like turning in your own father to be shot.

This tribal structure is re-enforced by the religious differences. It is so deep and basic that only someone as ignorant of history as Bush government could possible imagine that he could impose a democratic country on these people.

Thus, even if US were willing to send 30,000 of its finest young men to there deaths there, the Neo-conservative plan would fail.

I do not want to see any more US troops killed in the effort to do the impossible and deeply regret the 3,000 that have already died in vain because of the arrogance and ignorance of the Neo-conservatives, especially GWB and Rumsfield.

Buffalo Roam
11-02-06, 08:44 AM
Billy T, if you are so brilliant, why aren't you the President?

spidergoat
11-02-06, 11:36 AM
It's amazing what you have to believe to be a Republican. It seems to be mostly that government is too important to leave in the hands of the people.

Baron Max
11-02-06, 11:42 AM
It seems to be mostly that government is too important to leave in the hands of the people.

You surprise me, Spider! Just how many of "the people" actually know or care what the fuck is going on in the world? And even those who do, how many of them would know what to do about it?

Spider, you give "the people" much too much credit. But since you do, let me ask you this ...what would you say if "the people" duly elected a warmongering president and congress? Would you then say that leaving the government in the hands of the people is the right thing to do?????

See? Only when "the people" do what YOU want, is when you like it.

Baron Max

spidergoat
11-02-06, 12:01 PM
But the Republicans did not leave the election in the hands of the people, not even in the hands of the State of Florida. They did there best to prevent people from voting, and they were not fairly elected. The people didn't want Bush.

Baron Max
11-02-06, 12:03 PM
But the Republicans did not leave the election in the hands of the people, not even in the hands of the State of Florida. They did there best to prevent people from voting, and they were not fairly elected. The people didn't want Bush.

He was duly elected in accordance with the laws and rules, and by the vote of the electoral college. You can say anything you want, Spider, but it don't change nothin' ...he was elected by the people of the USA in accordance with all of the laws. If you can prove otherwise, then you're obligated to bring it to court.

Baron Max

spidergoat
11-02-06, 12:42 PM
That's irrelevent, the process, however legal, did not represent the will of the people. The process is broken, and that's one thing the Democrats will address.

Baron Max
11-02-06, 12:53 PM
That's irrelevent, the process, however legal, did not represent the will of the people. The process is broken, and that's one thing the Democrats will address.

You sure have a lot of faith in the democrats!! And if you recall, many of those same democrats went along with the results of the election without ever making a stink about it.

Also, most of those democrats also voted to go to war in Iraq. And please don't give me the bullshit about the evidence ....they could have asked for more or better, but they didn't ....they voted to go to war.

Fix the electoral college? No, Spider, many, if not most, of the politicians in congress feel that it's a good system and they don't want "popular vote". So .....what now?

Baron Max

Zakariya04
11-03-06, 02:03 AM
Spider

I hope all is going ok with you

the last democratic President, the big bill Clinton was a sexed crazed terrorist.. With one strike the fucker took out half the pharmacetuical manufacturing capacity of Sudan and the only factory which produce anti-malaria medicines.

Mind you Big bill was a genius where as bush is just like a comedy act were it that he is not in charge of the most powerful armed forces in the world.

~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Billy T
11-06-06, 08:33 AM
Billy T, if you are so brilliant, why aren't you the President?I have used my understanding of global causes and effects etc. to get rich. - I would not want to be president.

Nickelodeon
11-06-06, 08:36 AM
If you're so brilliant why are you not a billionaire?:p

Billy T
11-06-06, 09:18 AM
If you're so brilliant why are you not a billionaire?:pthat would reqire taking too much risk, starting as poor student. Also I have never undestood why some spend most of thier time seeking money. - I have not posted for four days as I had better things to do.

At my age and financial status, time is much more valuable than more money. But I still post here, mainly to correct other's errors as I like to teach - have done so all my life.

Nickelodeon
11-06-06, 09:27 AM
Also I have never undestood why some spend most of thier time seeking money.
People always want more, they are hardly ever content with what they already have.