The Iraq Thread

[Pukko 0]

I got a question on the ever present 'anti-a particular group of people' topic.

We often hear people comlaining about 'anti-US' attitudes in threads like this. We also hear 'antisemite' in the midest thread (which in my opinion risks taking the words real meaning away with time, 'anti Israel' would probaly be a better word to be used by people who wants to accuse someone around there).

Now to my question:

Have anyone ever heard or used something like 'anti-muslim' ? Or is there even a special word for it? If not, why is it so?

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 18 2003,16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you're reffering to our discussion about depleted uranium shells, they're not chemical warheads.  They're bullets.<span id='postcolor'>

No no, It's something totally different.  It's about how the UN inspectors "apparently" found 11 empty chemical warheads and showed a picture of one of the UN inspectors inspecting it.

I'm just saying how funny or bogus the picture is that they showed, because most UN inspectors that inspect "potential" chem/bio warheads, wouldn't inspect them without some sort of protection.  And as you can clearly see the in the photo, they were inspecting them without any protection.

Un Inspectors

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

Here is another thought... Could it be that France and Russia are dragging their feet about Iraq because they have HUGE oil contracts with Iraq? Maybe it is all about oil to them too?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Ran

I might be wrong on that, but France wasnt the right teritory for burned earth. Burned earth has the purpose of cutting future supplies of enemies. The only thing germans did when retreating was cutting water supplies, destroying bridges and and and... burned earth requires time and the germans didnt have the time to burn the densiley populated country. Burned earth was done in russia, and as the term sais, it means you basically burn everything, I doubt that the germans created a ring of burned villages to cut supplies. Why would you try to cut supplies from paratroopers anyway

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 18 2003,22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ran

I might be wrong on that, but France wasnt the right teritory for burned earth.  Burned earth has the purpose of cutting future supplies of enemies. The only thing germans did when retreating was cutting water supplies, destroying bridges and and and... burned earth requires time and the germans didnt have the time to burn the densiley populated country. Burned earth was done in russia, and as the term sais, it means you basically burn everything, I doubt that the germans created a ring of burned villages to cut supplies. Why would you try to cut supplies from paratroopers anyway<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.oradour.btinternet.co.uk/

* i haven't verified the whole content of the site , there might be some crude pictures in it , excuse me in advance and i will remove it if asked *

the "burned earth" tactic hasn't been applied as severly as it has been in russia , but Oradour is one of the few exemples ....

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Link not work for me!

Burned earth doesnt work for single villages, burned earth must include an entire ring and this entire ring must be vast enough to eat up the last supplies of an advancing army otherwise it is not burned earth. I dont want to say that you are wrong, but that lies in the logic of the strategy of "verbrannte Erde".

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 18 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is another thought...  Could it be that France and Russia are dragging their feet about Iraq because they have HUGE oil contracts with Iraq?  Maybe it is all about oil to them too? <span id='postcolor'>

maybe ... but we were there first .... then it would be unfair commercial concurrence

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 18 2003,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 18 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is another thought...  Could it be that France and Russia are dragging their feet about Iraq because they have HUGE oil contracts with Iraq?  Maybe it is all about oil to them too? <span id='postcolor'>

maybe ... but we were there first .... then it would be unfair commercial concurrence<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it is just because France has a great great experience with foreign affairs because they have administered colonies for decades. And they cant have made too much wrong because not many colonies threw them out.

But dont blame it all on france. Blame it on Germany if you want and blame it on me cause I agree with France and Germany

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 18 2003,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Link not work for me!<span id='postcolor'>

retry

so , following your words , saddam didn't use burned earth tactic

but he did the same as the french in 1940 and the germans in france in 1944 , my mistake then

and about oradour : i've been there twice , once when i was 11 in 1977 and also about 1 year ago

the place has changed alot in 25 years

when i went there in 1977 , the walls were still black

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 18 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 18 2003,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 18 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is another thought...  Could it be that France and Russia are dragging their feet about Iraq because they have HUGE oil contracts with Iraq?  Maybe it is all about oil to them too? <span id='postcolor'>

maybe ... but we were there first .... then it would be unfair commercial concurrence<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it is just because France has a great great experience with foreign affairs because they have administered colonies for decades. And they cant  have made too much wrong because not many colonies threw them out.

But dont blame it all on france. Blame it on Germany if you want and blame it on me cause I agree with France and Germany<span id='postcolor'>

huh . excuse me but it's getting late in the evening and i'm a lil' bit tired , what do you mean ?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Late at night, hell the maltese girls are just starting to go out!

My point was that France has gathered great experience in area of dealing with foreign nations. They know about the conflict potential of starting a war in a sensitive cultural environment. THat is what I mean!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 18 2003,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Late at night, hell the maltese girls are just starting to go out!  

My point was that France has gathered great experience in area of dealing with foreign nations. They know about the conflict potential of starting a war in a sensitive cultural environment. THat is what I mean!  <span id='postcolor'>

ahh yeah then

my familly has seen the combat in most of the french colonial wars and Franco-German wars since the middle of the 1850's like the first algeria campaigns the war for the gulf of the Tonkin and so

and we've gathered a lot of experience , but mainly from our errors and since we've already made them once , we don't want our little cousins of the new world to make them again

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

To speak openly (which all of us should do). I mainly fear that the US will start with a great "new millenium colonisation campaign". After the Afghanistan campaign I doubt that Iraq will cause more than a 1000 KIAs on the american side (besides thousands of casualties on the Iraqi side which will be looked at in the same way as the Hitleryouth). the US has the right to liquidate any potential future threat, but not to conquer countries with potential resources. To me it is scary to look at it this way. What is next? Saudi Arabia because most terorist were born there? If the US would promise not to impose a US-friendly government on Iraq then for me everything would be fine *except the civillian casualties.

Anyhow after Iraq there is no need to attack Saudi Arabia, Iraq has enough oil-potential. But I am scared, I am scared that the american population will be stoned with propaganda about the dangerous Saddam and noone will understand the real motivations. And I am scared that this will become a common practice> convince you population about jackshit and you will have the permission to do whatever you wish!

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 18 2003,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 18 2003,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 18 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is another thought...  Could it be that France and Russia are dragging their feet about Iraq because they have HUGE oil contracts with Iraq?  Maybe it is all about oil to them too? <span id='postcolor'>

maybe ... but we were there first .... then it would be unfair commercial concurrence<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it is just because France has a great great experience with foreign affairs because they have administered colonies for decades. And they cant  have made too much wrong because not many colonies threw them out.

But dont blame it all on france. Blame it on Germany if you want and blame it on me cause I agree with France and Germany<span id='postcolor'>

I am not blaming anyone. Just trying to make some people see another viewpoint. Just goes to show it is all how you spin it...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It is not about spining things, only the right key will work!

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am scared that the american population will be stoned with propaganda about the dangerous Saddam and noone will understand the real motivations. And I am scared that this will become a common practice> convince you population about jackshit and you will have the permission to do whatever you wish!

<span id='postcolor'>

I would like to think that you would give me(us) more credit than that. I voted for Bush and am a registered Republican and I would not support just invading a country for the hell of it. (I don't believe that is the case with Iraq) Now, if Bush's own supporter wouldn't support it, what makes you think the Democrats would? No way that would happen, this isn't Nazi Germany for god's sake.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 18 2003,22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ran

I might be wrong on that, but France wasnt the right teritory for burned earth.  Burned earth has the purpose of cutting future supplies of enemies. The only thing germans did when retreating was cutting water supplies, destroying bridges and and and... burned earth requires time and the germans didnt have the time to burn the densiley populated country. Burned earth was done in russia, and as the term sais, it means you basically burn everything, I doubt that the germans created a ring of burned villages to cut supplies. Why would you try to cut supplies from paratroopers anyway<span id='postcolor'>

Yes Albert, I'm afraid you are in some degree wrong on this one. I don't know if this was extensively done in France, but the whole of northern Norway was burnt down by the germans. They did it in order to slow down the advancing russian forces. This worked well acually because the russian forces didn't have much food supplies and "looted" what they could get their hands on when pursuing the germans in Finnmark (county). The really bad thing is that the germans burnt down EVERYTHING - even peoples houses. There was absolutely nothing left after the war and had it not been for the swedish help with food and supplies of new houses (svenskehus) after the war, things would have been even more disastrous.

Edit: sorry - you were talking about France only!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh you got me wrong on that one, I am sure the germans did the strategy of burned earth, with ALL the brutality that is required to carry it out. But I doubt the germans were applying it in France. As terrible as this sound but in your country it made a tiny tiny sense (if you totally ignore moral issues)

I never compared the US with Nazi Germany. But after having studied the issue of propaganda for several years I know how difficult to detect it. Didnt you notice that the US has recently FORBIDDEN to show any pictures of dead soldiers? Havent you noticed that the American Army recently financially supports pro-american war-films? And havent you noticed that films like WE WERE HEROES never worked outside the US and only sold well inside the US. Now I dont want to blame anyone neither do I want to construct silly pictures of EVIL AMERICA but I want to make clear that there are things being done that move into the incorrect direction.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> convince you population about jackshit and you will have the permission to do whatever you wish!

<span id='postcolor'>

I know you didnt compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany.  It was that your statement just reminded me of the Nazi propaganda machine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didnt you notice that the US has recently FORBIDDEN to show any pictures of dead soldiers? Havent you noticed that the American Army recently financially supports pro-american war-films?<span id='postcolor'>

I would say these things have always been done and not just in the U.S.  I can't recall anytime I have seen a dead U.S. soldier on the evening news in my lifetime and I am 30 yrs old.  Maybe the exception would be the Blackhawk Down incident.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 19 2003,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As terrible as this sound but in your country it made a tiny tiny sense (if you totally ignore moral issues)

<span id='postcolor'>

Of course it made sense (not being ironic/sarcastic). Germany had one of the biggest troop concentrations in Norway by the end of the war (aprx. 300 000). They were also pretty much self supplied. It was not clear that the german soldiers would lay down their weapons. I did not make a moral judgment. I believe it speaks for itselfl.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never compared the US with Nazi Germany. But after having studied the issue of propaganda for several years I know how difficult to detect it. Didnt you notice that the US has recently FORBIDDEN to show any pictures of dead soldiers? Havent you noticed that the American Army recently financially supports pro-american war-films? And havent you noticed that films like WE WERE HEROES never worked outside the US and only sold well inside the US. Now I dont want to blame anyone neither do I want to construct silly pictures of EVIL AMERICA but I want to make clear that there are things being done that move into the incorrect direction.<span id='postcolor'>

Why are you telling me this - I believe you know where I stand on these issues?

[brgnorway 0]

Take time to read this article. Some of you will say it's biased but most should find it interesting. There are two main points in this article. Oil and conflict - or the reason for it, and consequences of the use of car - dependent on oil. I like it - most US citizens propably hate it.

Source: Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,877269,00.html

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and why hasn't that embargo been lifted yet. Just because we created a monster, doesn't mean we have right to kill it.<span id='postcolor'>

We didn't create a monster. For some sick twisted reason he's been a very sick and twisted person. He killed his own teacher once when he was a kid I hear. Not our fault at all.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a scam. It basically a source of dirt cheap oil for us lot, as it has nothing to do with OPEC.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a scam at all. We're trading with him. He's not going to give us the oil if he doesn't like our deal. It's not like there aren't plenty of other countries willing to trade with him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And besides, what has he to attack with?<span id='postcolor'>

Whoevers old and strong enough to carry a rifle. He threatens to kill them and their family.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd be more worried about the country further to the East. You know, the one with the means and the capability to make WMD's. The one who's threatened your country with war. The one with a decent ICBM program in development....<span id='postcolor'>

The one who's made countless threats in the past and done nothing? The one who's in the same situation that when he attacks he'll be destroyed? The one who's country is starving so he can feed his military?

Yes, like I've said before, we're trying diplomacy with NK. Why? Because they deserve a chance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, diplomacy. NK has broken more treaties and mandates than Iraq, and has been doing it for alot longer.<span id='postcolor'>

Source?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know you keep spewing forth the same old tired rhetoric that has been drummed into your head, but I'm with Denoir here, you don't seem to be able to open your mind up to the larger picture.<span id='postcolor'>

The only reason I'm spewing for the same old tired rhetoric that I've come upon myself is because it hasn't been negated yet. You just keep coming up with more and more arguments, none of which make any important points and none of which are worthy of changing an opinion over.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and oil is not YOURS , but it's OURS , it's one of the main energetic ressource for the whole planet and your president or government doesn't have the right to play around with it and to give the monopoly of its exploitation to his "friends"<span id='postcolor'>

Had you been reading what I said, you'd know I already said that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you don't attack him , he won't burn it this time ....<span id='postcolor'>

But we need to attack him. He has weapons he's not allowed to have. Anybody who was awake in 1998 remembers the UN inspection team being kicked out of Iraq. They said themselves there were some left over weapons they couldn't destroy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and aslong as he is in power American companies cannot access the oil. The oil is supplied by Saddam, when and how he choses.<span id='postcolor'>

You've proven my point. If Bush wanted the oil for our companies he'd simply lift the embargo.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought you were talking about burning oilfields? Where is the proof that he is planning to attack his neighbors? And, where is the proof of WMDs? There still is none...<span id='postcolor'>

He's attacked his neighbors before. And the UN weapon inspectors that were kicked out in 1998 said they could not destroy some of his weapons before they left. He's probably exported them if you ask me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm just saying how funny or bogus the picture is that they showed, because most UN inspectors that inspect "potential" chem/bio warheads, wouldn't inspect them without some sort of protection. And as you can clearly see the in the photo, they were inspecting them without any protection.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, so on one hand you're looking to UN weapons inspectors to find weapons that we KNOW he has (or has exported), and on the other hand you don't trust them?

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 19 2003,01:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, so on one hand you're looking to UN weapons inspectors to find weapons that we KNOW he has (or has exported), and on the other hand you don't trust them?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm just saying the picture that was taken of the UN inspectors "inspecting" one of the so called bio/chem war heads that they found is bogus.  If it was an actual bio/chem war head as they say it was, then they would have used proper protective clothing to inspect it.  In other words, more propaganda

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To speak openly (which all of us should do). I mainly fear that the US will start with a great "new millenium colonisation campaign". After the Afghanistan campaign I doubt that Iraq will cause more than a 1000 KIAs on the american side (besides thousands of casualties on the Iraqi side which will be looked at in the same way as the Hitleryouth). the US has the right to liquidate any potential future threat, but not to conquer countries with potential resources. To me it is scary to look at it this way. What is next? Saudi Arabia because most terorist were born there? If the US would promise not to impose a US-friendly government on Iraq then for me everything would be fine *except the civillian casualties.

Anyhow after Iraq there is no need to attack Saudi Arabia, Iraq has enough oil-potential. But I am scared, I am scared that the american population will be stoned with propaganda about the dangerous Saddam and noone will understand the real motivations. And I am scared that this will become a common practice> convince you population about jackshit and you will have the permission to do whatever you wish!<span id='postcolor'>

I couldn't agree with you more.  Its like brainwashing citizens using the media with propaganda. If it continues this way, they will be able to get away with murder, quite literally!

Heres some  food for thought.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 19 2003,01:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We didn't create a monster. For some sick twisted reason he's been a very sick and twisted person. He killed his own teacher once when he was a kid I hear. Not our fault at all.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, you didn't create him. But you helped him secure his position by aiding him financially and military. Don't come up with the "remember he was our ally once" thing. If you can't accept criticism on your own behalf - that is - your countries dubious actions of the past - then you clearly have no ability of self criticism. By the way - why do you think all your "former allies" turn and attack you like a mad dog? You are playing a dangerous game and suffer the consequences all to often. Why not learn from your mistakes and stop fucking up all the time. Yes, Saddam is realy really bad, but he is partly your own responsability.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not a scam at all. We're trading with him. He's not going to give us the oil if he doesn't like our deal. It's not like there aren't plenty of other countries willing to trade with him.

<span id='postcolor'>

It is a scam. He is practicaly not allowed to sell his oil because it's sold at so called "unknown" prices. The price of oil from Iraq is supposed to be decided AFTER the deal has been done. Would you buy oil if you didn't know what to pay for it? That's also the biggest problem with the current famine and lack of medicines in Iraq. There is no money to buy material from the "oil for food"-programme.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The one who's made countless threats in the past and done nothing? The one who's in the same situation that when he attacks he'll be destroyed? The one who's country is starving so he can feed his military?

Yes, like I've said before, we're trying diplomacy with NK. Why? Because they deserve a chance<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on! They are potentially much more dangorous than Saddam will ever be! They have broken ALL SORTS of treaties like: opened fire at japaneese and south korean military, kidnapped civilians of the same countries numerous times. They did also throw out the weapons inspectors monitoring the closed down atomic programme etc.

North Korea should in your logic certainly not deserve "a new" chance. Maybe your government are too pragmatic for it's own good in the long term.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You've proven my point. If Bush wanted the oil for our companies he'd simply lift the embargo.

<span id='postcolor'>

Have you been listening to this debate and the world news at all?

[Guest]

Regardless of all attempts of justification for the war, these facts remain:

[*] Iraq has not threatened the United States or anybody else for that matter

[*] Iraq has no connections to AQ or other terrorists

[*] There is not a single shred of evidence that Iraq is currently having or developing nuclear weapons.

Making up pretexts for wars is as old as our civilization. The German made up reasons to invade Europe. The Russians made up reasons to invade Afganistan. Saddam Hussein made up reasons for invading Kuwait. It is in human nature trying to justify ones actions. With some propaganda you will have people believing those pretexts.

History has shown that there is no need for an elaborate pretext - it's enough just to make up something and people will follow since people have a psychological trait that makes them behave like sheep under certain conditions.

What I find is sad is that this lack of individual independent thinking hasn't changed dispite our modern information society. One would say that real information is the best antidote to propaganda. Apparently not.

You won't convince FSPilot, no matter what evidence or rational arguments you present and he is not alone. There are a lot of people like him. I can't pretend to understand the mental block against rational thought that is evidently there but it is a classic phenomena.