Fox news must die, CNN too

And yet I think the fact that they're in a small minority of legal minds on the subject validates my statement.Just as the existence of creation scientists doesn't alter the fact that evolution is certainly the only valid scientific theory currently on the subject.

quote:"Why would they want to become engaged with what they see (from their point of view) as a puppet of the US?"First: Is that their point of view? I don't see where they have made that clear. That is, aside from their retoric that includes speaches about the "Christian nation of America" trying to wipe out their religion.Admitedly, the U.S. has set up dictatorships in the past as our "puppets". That kind of thing is much more difficult now in the age of CNN.The Iraqi's can change their government by participating in it. It doesn't have to be a puppet of the U.S. I realize that this is not evident to the rank and file but it should be to their leaders.Unfortunately, most of those poor folks, followed their religious leader's urgings and died fighting something that doesn't exist....a United States that wants to subjegate them.BTW: I am not a FOB (Friend O' Bush)

---

We're apathetic anarchists...we don't care who we blow up!

quote:

---

First: Is that their point of view? I don't see where they have made that clear. That is, aside from their retoric that includes speaches about the "Christian nation of America" trying to wipe out their religion.

---

Who are they? you seem to be assuming that we are fighting one singular entity in iraq - I'm not sure that is the case.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, most of those poor folks, followed their religious leader's urgings and died fighting something that doesn't exist....a United States that wants to subjegate them.

---

Unfortunately, most of those poor folks, followed their religious leader's urgings and died fighting something that doesn't exist....a Iraq that had WMDs.

Charles,Your continued use of the word "compound" over a decade later further reinforces the point I am making about being led by our government to have certain prejudices that end up being favorable to the government's future planned actions. Once they have the public brainwashed into thinking they are bad then it becomes much more acceptable to burn them to death, or whatever the action might become. And again, I'm not going to get into a debate here about our differing views on the events of Waco.Now, if you happen to refer to every church grounds as "compounds", then I might retract my statement, in your case.I think the general point being made is that what our media are calling "terrorists" are "freedom-fighters" in the eyes of others. The debates on what constitutes terrorism are very interesting.We musn't take everything we are being fed by our media as factual. I am getting better at being able to know when I'm being "fed" some information. I hope to get really good at it some day.Verzem

Are these not the same people? They are doing a lot more than this. They are killing innocent Iraqi citizens and blowing up bombs in peaceful cities to try and prevent this new free government from succeeding. They desire 3 things: power, umpteen virgins, and the destruction of the US and her allies.Were they representing some sort of national power or alliance, they would probably be called something else, but since they try to advance their own power and ideology by any violent means available, they are called terrorists. No, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you want to believe these terrorists are the good guys. Tell that to the >100 innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed by these 'insurgents' in the last week. Neither one of us is blind, and that is what really disturbs me. You seem to have good intentions, but the conclusions you've come to are so evil, I just can't comprehend it.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 11-15-2004 03:14 PM

No, they're not. The kidnapping guys are Islamic jihadists from Iraq and other countries.The guys dropping mortar shells into American camps and ambushing convoys are former Iraqi soldiers.I thought I had made it clear that these aren't the same people. Well hell, we did all those things too, only it was to topple the old government, not the new one.I mean, if we can justify the deaths of Iraqi citizens as collateral damage to overthrow a regime, why can't they? Oh, right. Because they're not us. Well, they are. They represent the regime that we deposed. Look, I don't think they're good guys. I don't think that what they do is good, or that the side they're on is the right one. But they're on a legitimate side. I wouldn't call a German soldier in WWII a "terrorist" just because he was on the other side.The guys cutting off the heads are not on a legitimate "side". But the ex-military guys lobbing mortars at us are. Oh, so in your view, everyone who isn't with us is a terrorist? When did I ever say these were the "good guys"? I'll see your 100 innocent Iraqis, and raise you the 100,000 innocent Iraqis that we killed. The conclusions you come to are so littered with double-standards that I can't comprehend it. Well, actually, I can - anything the US does is Right, anything anyone else does is Right only in regards to how much we agree with it, and anyone who opposes us is not only Wrong, they're a TERRORIST.Would you have called German soldiers in WWII "terrorists", because they were on the other side? That seems so stupid to me that I can't imagine an intelligent person would. But you might surprise me in your next post.AbE: Look, I mean, it sucks when these ex-military insurgents lob a mortar and kill our soldiers. I hate that. But calling them "terrorists" for doing so is as stupid and immature as when a bully complains about being hit back.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-15-2004 03:31 PM

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll throw in the family of five we shot to death as they tried to flee Fallujah:

quote:

---

In the weeks before the crushing military assault on his hometown, Bilal Hussein sent his parents and brother away from Fallujah to stay with relatives.

​

The 33-year-old Associated Press photographer stayed behind to capture insider images during the siege of the former insurgent stronghold.

​

...

​

Hussein moved from house to house ” dodging gunfire ” and reached the river.

​

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

​

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."

---

Oh, right. I forgot. When we kill Iraqis, it's collateral damage. When they kill Iraqis, its because they're evil terrorists. Oh, wait - maybe it was the family of five that were the terrorists? Or maybe the reporter or the AP are the terrorists. No, wait, it's me who's the terrorist, for showing the story to you.

deleted by author.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-15-2004 03:53 PM

quote:"Who are they? you seem to be assuming that we are fighting one singular entity in iraq - I'm not sure that is the case."It's the same "they" that you mentioned in Message 28...All the Iraqi's?Seriously, the religious leader may be a different guy but the message is the same. "They are trying to wipe out the Muslim religion!!!!....go kill 'em." Funny though, there are moderate clerics who don't seem to think that way and, amazingly, the US is not trying to wipe them out. It would seem that the passive ones would be easier to get rid of.quote: "...died fighting something that doesn't exist....a Iraq that had WMDs. "Yes that is unfortunate that we were mistaken in the estimate of Iraq's capabilities. However, being mistaken is not the same as lying. When did they become one and the same? I'm not going to go into unfounded speculation on what the government "really knew", because, frankly, we don't know. Also, my point was that those people didn't know what the US was up to because their leaders told them what to believe.I would hope that we are there to help them make a country where they can choose for themselves what they want to believe.A little wishful thinking, I know.

---

We're apathetic anarchists...we don't care who we blow up!

Hey LinearAq, please spend a minute or two to read Style guides for EvC. Pay particular attention to Step 5. Thanks.

They became one and the same, when people arguing against the use of force claimed that we did not actually know if there were WMDs, and this administration said those people were wrong and that US intel knew exactly where they were.Not only has it come out in the intellegence review that they knew that they did not know if they existed, much less where, they also knew they had no way of knowing. You didn't hear the news that we didn't have one agent in Iraq? Not one.If they had said well we think this may be the case but we have old and some overtly questionable material so we can't be sure, but we can't take the chance... then that would not have been lying. That was not the case they made. They said they just didn't know how advanced some projects were, and when they'd be available for deployment. That's a lie in just about any definition I can find.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2004 05:24 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks...I'll pay closer attention.BTW: Nice beagles.

---

We're apathetic anarchists...we don't care who we blow up!

What people were these? Those in government? Senators? Representatives? Did the people making these claims have any reason to be in the know? If so, did they speak up so the public could hear their side?My sources of info simply gave me the impression that the intelligence community screwed up. I was not aware that there was more info out about the details of insider knowledge.Guess I was mistaken....or was I lying?...just not sure anymore.

Rrhain, we don't always agree on everything but you were totally right about everything there. I couldn't have made better use of the word "Bullshit" myself. That's a post of the month!

---

God is far more powerful than what most have in mind. Imagine God as best you can. Now zoom out from that picture in your mind and imagine a God above the previous one, even more powerful than the first. Zoom out further and imagine an even greater God. Now do that endlessly. That, my friend, is but a glimmering sliver of God.Xanga 2.0 is Here! (WARNING:EXPLICT LANGUAGE)

Are you serious? Did you not hear about the speech at the UN which resulted in a standing ovation (and totally dissed Powell's speech)? How about the public findings of the IAEA. Ever hear of Hans Blix? How about Senator Graham? Do you watch CNN? Perhaps Wolf Blitzer? Did you hear about all of the senior diplomats (including republicans) which formed a group to criticize Bush's actions given the false intelligence he was using? Did you hear about the group of top US intelligence agents which formed a group to publicly denounce the intelligence claims made by Bush?If you did not hear or read any of the above then you were not paying attention, or only paying attention to biased sources (aka FOX). These were all public.I mean come on, you are actually saying you didn't hear the controversy regarding Bush's claims regarding nuclear weapons? Then your sources of info are bad. That makes them mistaken and you a poor choice in gathering intelligence for yourself.However that doesn't get the guy who was in charge of arranging our national intelligence resources off the hook. He ran it badly (so yes they did make mistakes), and then falsely portraying shaky information as credible.What's amazing is that in all of this you are able to let Bush off the hook as if they were simple mistakes (something anyone could make) and they were not connected directly to him. He's the executive, and he's not admitting they're his mistakes. Yet another lie for the scorecard. And you buy that? Sheesh.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)