Anyone else seen the thing on cbs tonight about...

[cpl_BOB 0]

well now i changed my mind, NUKE THE BASTARDS.

hell im not afraid to die, strap a few pounds of semtex to my body and i'll suicide bomb his bloody massion in iraq.

(i gone to far this time me thinks)

[WisdoM 1]

Atleast Tony Blair has had the intuition to see the right thing here. I htink after all this mess is over, the world will probably think diffrently on the matter. It's justthat the majority of you have become, or atleast seem to be, pacsifists. You dont want to go to war because you fear a substantail loss of life, which I dont think we are going to see, sure a few hundred at most, but thats after a few years war with all these other countries.

I think we should atleast all come together and settle this dispute over in Israel/palestin before we go on and move this war towards anywhere else. That should be number one on the worlds agenda, but we tried to do it back when Clinton was president..Israel does have every right in the world to exist, and thats the problem, palstin thinks they shouldnt. They need to learn to co-exist peacefully, which with the situation of schools and children being taught at young ages that Amercia is bad..and to kill the "bad people", its never going to happen.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Murda Inc @ Mar. 12 2002,10:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's just that the majority of you have become, or atleast seem to be, pacsifists. You dont want to go to war because you fear a substantail loss of life, which I dont think we are going to see, sure a few hundred at most, but thats after a few years war with all these other countries.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it is a good thing not to go to war because it WILL cause substantial loss of life. As for your estimate of few hundreds, U.S. has already killed that many civilians alone in Afganistan. As for soldiers, I don't even want to think about how many of those you have killed.

Maybe we should all have a little exercise in empathy, it is very useful when discussing war. Imagine you're in a situation where all the people you know and care about have been blown to bits by bombs. Even if you didn't want war against those foreign people who bombed you. Even if you couldn't less care about those foreign people and their business. It's just that your asshole neighbour that you never liked suicide bombed those foreigners. Imagine how that feels. If you can put yourself into that position, can you really wish that for somebody else?

It sure seems that the 3000 deaths in WTC were just the prelude to the actual loss of life to come.

[LauryThorn 0]

This is off topic in an off topic topic:

But did you know that George W. Bush went to see Stevie Wonder's gig.

He waved at Stevie, and wondered aloud why Stevie did not wave back.

[LOL]

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Mar. 12 2002,08:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep, when iraq send's a few chemical weapon's over too europe to deal with any forces that might choose to deal with iraq after what they did to america, you might think differently.<span id='postcolor'>

Now why would he want that? .. ahh yes, because some NATO countries helped the US to bomb Iraq... so the American citizens could buy petrol at a consant price.

Except for one thing.. Why bomb anything in Europe when you get 100x the hysteria and indignation in the US...

[Longinius 1]

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar1.htm

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

Recommended reading for those of you that think news media reports a situation as it is.

[WisdoM 1]

The stupidity that plagues these forums still amazes me. Go ahead oligo, say I'm the stupid one

[WisdoM 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,07:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar1.htm

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

Recommended reading for those of you that think news media reports a situation as it is.<span id='postcolor'>

It's funny how you back up your thoughts of false reporting in the media with more media! lmao, just because it comes from someone you think to tell the truth doesnt it make it so, hell thats pretty much what you're saying, and then you back up that saying with media, really confusing. I guess all we can really do according to your philosiphy is either a) go cover teh war ourselves, or b) be a pranoid SOB who thinks everyine is out to lie to him. I still just thinks it's funny that you back up fals reporting with someone elses reporting.

[Longinius 1]

That was not someone reporting. That was an investigation into news reported during the Gulf war.

You are right though, that could be fake to. The sad part is, it is not. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but I think some people will find it interesting.

[WisdoM 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,07:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That was not someone reporting. That was an investigation into news reported during the Gulf war.

You are right though, that could be fake to. The sad part is, it is not. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but I think some people will find it interesting.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont have the time right now to read it, but I promise you I will later, I have an open-mind. But see your still doing what you tell us not to do, believe the media....the man who wrote it may have only done an investigation...but whos to say he doesnt feel like stiriing up some trouble, or just lying for the hell of it...I'm just going on the basis of what you tell me about the world news scene. Your not doing anything on your own, your just taking what this guy tells you and beliving it to be true

[Damage Inc 0]

Conspiracy theories? No thanks, I just ate.

[LauryThorn 0]

War is nowadays much about who controls the information.

[Longinius 1]

"Your not doing anything on your own, your just taking what this guy tells you and beliving it to be true"

No, I am not. I have checked other articles, other sources. That is what you do when you want to reach a fairly reliable result, you look at more than one source (from more than one standpoint) and then you form an opinion based on what you got.

[Longinius 1]

"Conspiracy theories? No thanks, I just ate."

What theories?

[WisdoM 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Your not doing anything on your own, your just taking what this guy tells  you and beliving it to be true"

No, I am not. I have checked other articles, other sources. That is what you do when you want to reach a fairly reliable result, you look at more than one source (from more than one standpoint) and then you form an opinion based on what you got.<span id='postcolor'>

Show me these other sources, right now you only have one...therefore you are beliving what is told to you....if you can show me more than 10 sources of info that arent related then sure..maybe you have something...but not very likely..but then again...you'll probably do a google search and come up with hundereds that you never even read.

[Longinius 1]

Sorry, but I have a hard time scanning the books and articles I have here because...well...I don't have a scanner. You could do like I did and go to a library though (one that has old newspaper archives and video footage tucked away).

Some sources the author himself used are listed in that article.

Doing a search on the www for "Hill & Knowlton" will surely get you more information about it.

Please note that I am refering to the propaganda aspect used during the Gulf War and not the incidents of the war itself.

[WisdoM 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please note that I am refering to the propaganda aspect used during the Gulf War and not the incidents of the war itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh...well hell Propaganda is always going to be part of a war, and the majority of the time full of false calims..thats why its called Propaganda, it's used to encourage others to understand why it you are doing what you are doing. I know the U.S. uses harsh means of propaganda, but so does every other country at war...thats a part of war. just like Afghanies and you guys use civilain casualities...thats propaganda wether you want to admit it or not! The whole WTC is a means of propaganda....so I could really care less about hat.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Murda Inc @ Mar. 12 2002,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,078)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar1.htm

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

Recommended reading for those of you that think news media reports a situation as it is.<span id='postcolor'>

It's funny how you back up your thoughts of false reporting in the media with more media! lmao, just because it comes from someone you think to tell the truth doesnt it make it so, hell thats pretty much what you're saying, and then you back up that saying with media, really confusing. I guess all we can really do according to your philosiphy is either a) go cover teh war ourselves, or b) be a pranoid SOB who thinks everyine is out to lie to him. I still just thinks it's funny that you back up fals reporting with someone elses reporting.<span id='postcolor'>

You are right about that, but you are very naive if you think that what CNN reports has much correlation to what actually happens in time of war. I know this from first hand exprirence, when I was with KFOR in Kosovo. The official NATO (and hence CNN) reports of the accomplishments of the bombing campaign was pure fiction. This could range from exaggerations to plain lies. There were several complaints made from the KFOR command to the NATO Press Office about the fantasy reports that they made, but it didn't lead to any changes. The Russians pulled the same stunt on their reporting, but angeled in the opposite direction.

CNN reported directly what NATO said, without any reviewing of the facts. Now, in Kosovo it was NATO in general that produced these incorrect reports, not just the Yanks.

This is of course understandable that you need popular support for a war campaign, and propaganda has always been an essential component of war, make no misstake of that.

As for the is Osama guilty, question, I like to quote Bush on that:

"The United States of America vows to defeat whoever it is we're at war with. [snip] We are preparing to strike, directly and decisively, against you, whoever you are!"

Well, the US had to do something after WTC, fast. Osama was the most probable perpetrator.

[WisdoM 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 12 2002,07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Murda Inc @ Mar. 12 2002,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar1.htm

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

Recommended reading for those of you that think news media reports a situation as it is.<span id='postcolor'>

It's funny how you back up your thoughts of false reporting in the media with more media! lmao, just because it comes from someone you think to tell the truth doesnt it make it so, hell thats pretty much what you're saying, and then you back up that saying with media, really confusing. I guess all we can really do according to your philosiphy is either a) go cover teh war ourselves, or b) be a pranoid SOB who thinks everyine is out to lie to him. I still just thinks it's funny that you back up fals reporting with someone elses reporting.<span id='postcolor'>

You are right about that, but you are very naive if you think that what CNN reports has much correlation to what actually happens in time of war. I know this from first hand exprirence, when I was with KFOR in Kosovo. The official NATO (and hence CNN) reports of the accomplishments of the bombing campaign was pure fiction. This could range from exaggerations to plain lies. There were several complaints made from the KFOR command to the NATO Press Office about the fantasy reports that they made, but it didn't lead to any changes. The Russians pulled the same stunt on their reporting, but angeled in the opposite direction.

CNN reported directly what NATO said, without any reviewing of the facts. Now, in Kosovo it was NATO in general that produced these incorrect reports, not just the Yanks.

This is of course understandable that you need popular support for a war campaign, and propaganda has always been an essential component of war, make no misstake of that.

As for the is Osama guilty, question, I like to quote Bush on that:

"The United States of America vows to defeat whoever it is we're at war with. [snip] We are preparing to strike, directly and decisively, against you, whoever you are!"

Well, the US had to do something after WTC, fast. Osama was the most probable perpetrator.<span id='postcolor'>

I already pointed this out in another post..first of all I dont watch CNN, everyone knows CNN is the most bias news orginization there is.

And the evidence is plainly there for Osamas conviction..Like i said to Longinus..you all simply like to argue for the sake of arguing, i could call you a fucking genius and you'd argue with me why I'm wrong.

[Longinius 1]

"just like Afghanies and you guys use civilain casualities...thats propaganda wether you want to admit it or not! The whole WTC is a means of propaganda....so I could really care less about hat."

prop·a·gan·da n. information made public, esp. by a government, to persuade people that s.t. is true and worthy of support: During the war, the government published propaganda about victories of the troops when in fact they were losing battles. -v. propagandize.

How can you call the number of civilian deaths propaganda? If it is greatly exadurated, then yes, its propaganda. But if one tries to get an accurate figure you surely cannot call it propaganda?

[Longinius 1]

"And the evidence is plainly there for Osamas conviction..Like i said to Longinus..you all simply like to argue for the sake of arguing, i could call you a fucking genius and you'd argue with me why I'm wrong."

Nah, I wouldn't argue with you on that ;P

But I would argue about the evidence against Osama though. Mainly because I have seen no evidence. I have only been told that it exists.

[WisdoM 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 12 2002,07:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"just like Afghanies and you guys use civilain casualities...thats propaganda wether you want to admit it or not! The whole WTC is a means of propaganda....so I could really care less about hat."

prop·a·gan·da  n. information made public, esp. by a government, to persuade people that s.t. is true and worthy of support: During the war, the government published propaganda about victories of the troops when in fact they were losing battles. -v. propagandize.

How can you call the number of civilian deaths propaganda? If it is greatly exadurated, then yes, its propaganda. But if one tries to get an accurate figure you surely cannot call it propaganda?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry but you all are using civilain casualties as propaganda buddy. How is it not propaganda? Your using it to tell me why the U.S.'s cause in the war is wrong, IT IS PROPAGANDA.....plain and simple. And teh deaths over ther have been GREATLY exggageated....escecially by the folks on this forum, so yes IT IS PROPAGANDA, but of course you'll never tell me that im right...cuz you are all knowing.

[Longinius 1]

"I'm sorry but you all are using civilain casualties as propaganda buddy. How is it not propaganda? Your using it to tell me why the U.S.'s cause in the war is wrong, IT IS PROPAGANDA.....plain and simple. And teh deaths over ther have been GREATLY exggageated....escecially by the folks on this forum, so yes IT IS PROPAGANDA, but of course you'll never tell me that im right...cuz you are all knowing."

I never claimed to be all knowing. I have even admitted being wrong on these forums more than once.

So you think a death count of around 2 500 -+ a couple of hundreds is to much? (deaths from direct American and Northern Allience interventions)

[WisdoM 1]

I'm done for awhile, I get to angry after reading through these forums..it almost makes me want to run for president then bomb your country and kill all of you But hey according to you thats what we do now You better hope I never run for president or first I'm going for the brits, then the swedes....I'll leave the mexicans and canadians alone though. I'll do it the good old fashion way though..none of this diplomacy shit where I would declare war..I would just launch a barrage of nukes and you would never know what happened. Oh well let me calm down and I'll come back later before i have an annuerism.

[LauryThorn 0]

It's propaganda?

You used the American-heros-who-died-gladly-for-the-right-thing

here like 15 minutes ago.

Of course numbers are different. Western sources say that

maybe 100 civilians are dead, islam sources say 500 or more.

The truth may be something like 250.

But what you're trying to do is say that these deaths mean nothing because somebody is twisting numbers!