Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine
jasonditz writes "The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
They need to install mind probes in the brain of every one of us. As well as receiving suggestive messages they also act as a tracking device. People will accept it because they get 2% off gasoline when they fill up and there's a shorter line at the airport for people who have been chipped.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Why exactly is this on Slashdot? Doesn't necessarily fit the "news for nerds" mantra...
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Don't use cartoons.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
I think that it is double plus good!
- Tempestdata
Thanks god for the BBc, AlJazeera, Slashdot and other less biased media.
Res publica non dominetur
Story submitter is complaining about US propaganda and then links to an article on Al Jazeera?
Yeah, that's an unbiased source.
Go look it up and learn something new.
Surely we can come up with something better than this. Will extra servings of horseshit make up for our tragedy of a foreign policy?
~ Brave New World
It is not as bad as it could be...
......
However, he also used his speech in Florida to claim progress in the war on al-Qaeda
So, who is flip-flop again?
For the last time, that's NOT what "begging the question" means. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-t he-question.html
Propaganda comes in 3 flavours:
White - factual.
Grey - some facts, some half-truths and a little bit of lying.
Black - all lies.
Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
That boggles the mind.
I think that the US Government is past the point of no return on the propaganda thing. It depends on two concepts: that the rest of the world trusts the good things that they hear about America, and that the rest of the world isn't smart enough to find out the truth themselves.
I'd wager a guess that most of the people who care enough to pay attention to the propaganda war have probably figured out its rigged. In fact, since this is so well known (Hell, the government is even *admitting* it these days?!), it can only be serving to darken and discolour any actual real positive information that may be out there.
What they really need to do is start using truth. There *are* still enough good things about the United States to be proud of. Unfortunately, our arrogance tends to obscure that. We're like the mean guy at the party that won't shut up.
I'm kind of curious, because I didn't see any question in the write-up at all. Just a bunch of assertions. See: Begs The Question...
"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"
Those with power can own the truth....this is what we call propaganda.
Be afraid, very afraid....
On the other hand, when you're a force that's saving lives and making things better- as the U.S. military was in Indonesia- our popularity goes up. The problem isn't the perception of our foreign policy, the problem IS our foreign policy. The neocons need to get out of their little alternate universe of spin and start dealing in the real world, like the old-school Republicans of Bush H. W. Bush's administration.
The history of government propaganda is long and diverse, and includes successes as well as failures. Effective propaganda does not need to be evil. During WWII, Allied propagandists printed newspapers for Axis soldiers, and they were much appreciated by their recipients for being rather more reliable than the official German news sources.
Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.
24 hour propaganda machine
sulli
RTFJ.
You want to know why people listen to Bin Ladan and his ilk? Because there are a lot of poor, miserable, hungry people over there whose lives suck, and he (and Zarquai and all the rest) are managing to successfully convince them to blame an innocent third party. Ok, not ENTIRELY innocent *cough*assassinations*cough* but still, the theocrats and fascists sitting in power are FAR more to blame than the US.
And when people are hungry enough, and desperate enough, and you tell them, "THAT guy! HE'S to blame!" They'll believe you.
Especially if That Guy has never done a damn thing they've ever seen to help them.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
it's your future .. 1984 is all about the technical future .. not to mention generational amnesia
..
got it yet
It begs the question, how much more SHOULD they do? Should we, western society, have to do propaganda to win the hearts of Muslims? Or should we simply rely on saying the truth, including the ugly side?
I would like to see a 24/7 channel established which would be objective. Propaganda channels can only go so far, because people eventually realise that the picture shown by them is too rosy, and when this happens, the channels loose all credibility. I do understand the need to have a western channel in Iraq, because I suspect that Iraqi channels might not be objective either. I know that in Canada our national television channels are not always objectives. So if I cannot trust my own country channels, I guess I cannot trust those of Iraq.
But for a 24/7 channel to be objective, it should be established by an international organisation and have muslisms on its board and production staff. Editorials from both camps should be allowed. Of course, who is to say that it will be totally objective? But it would be a start.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
the bias has been planted deeply on both the sides. only the cream or intelligent crowd would become aware of the *actual* facts and think/decide wisely. rest of the herd would sway with what the media shows (depends on where you are, and what you see.
Same is with the India-Pak issue (kinda unneccasary to mention here, but related), where both the sides (media, govt.) try their best to project themselves as good, and get support from outside by getting their side of story.
As it stands, I have to post this as anonymous because I am realizing that the current witch hunt against Muslims is such that anything we say can be turned against us so hopefully the mods will forgive me.
As a Muslim and as an American I totally agree with you. Most people living in those countries just have to step outside to see the ravages of the United States foreign policy. If going outside isn't cutting it, they can always call a friend or relative in another country. Foreign policy must change to win the minds of Muslims not putting out more propaganda. Once the Bush Administration learns this, we'll be up for the next presidential election. At that time, I hope my fellow Americans see the last 8 years for what it was: a dismal failure. It's time to vote in new leadership or, at the very least, split the legislative and executive branches such that no one party controls both.
What the US needs is to act with caution and responsability and be a good world citizen. Stop using torture and avoid collateral damage in foreign countries. Demand the same things from both friends and foes (like, why let Israel have illegal nuclear weapons but bash Iran wich has none nor the ability to develop them).
et rid of the need to alter the reality and the problem is solved.
HTTP/1.1 400
Is this the same Rumsfeld that doesn't use email?
When we helped arm and train the Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin) to fight the Soviet Union, we promised to help them rebuild their country after. Instead, we left Afghanistan to their warlords, and eventually the Taliban.
We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.
Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Once regular sources of information have become tainted with disinformation, people will turn away to what they feel are more "trustworthy" outlets.
If you destroy TV, radio, newspapers and even the internet with lies, people in need of the truth will turn back to the pulpit, to obtain comfort and security from the man who spits bile at infidels, women and modernity, and who tells them that masturbation is wrong and menstruation is unclean and that we're all tainted by some sin that someone who never even existed committed.
I live in a country that was like this not too long ago. I'd rather not have to go back to it, or see anyone else forced to either.
May the Maths Be with you!
Its been my experience in talking to friends who are not US citizens and do not live here that the quickest way to get them to distrust any information source is for them to find out it is backed officially by the US government.
An even more sad fact is that speaking for myself as a US citizen and a US resident, that also makes me distrust the information source too. And I have found that to be true regardless of which party is in power.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
well, unless the democrats get control of the senate and impeach our dictator, then it looks like another 3 years worth of damage
"how much more can they possibly do?"
Clearly with the war effort going as well as it has been, and with the troops under the wing of such a glorious leader, it is time to turn our attentions to better teaching the people of the Middle East how to fulfill the promise of democracy and freedom for all.
Yes, a 24 hour US government news agency in the middle east is exactly what we need to raise our profile there. And not just satellite tv, but newspapers, people on street corners talking into cell phones, police officers with funny looking badges visiting schools, secret service agents with vans making people disappear in the middle of the night... Forget I said that last one.
Yes, it is a glorious, democratic future awaiting the middle east, and we just have to show them how. And who better to do it than Haliburton, America's #1 trusted news source? Haliburton, when you need it done right, without the pansy left.
("psst. Can I get my five bucks now?")
The ______ Agenda
We should have never went into Iraq. It was a pretty stupid decision. All we did was legitimize the growing Shiite theocracy. How many American lives were lost for what? Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism and the government we will have installed there will have nothing to do with democracy. That's if it lasts longer than 5 years. I'm not saying the Muslim world isn't ready for a democracy but it's going to be a democracy that is starkly different than what we had in mind. Also how friendly will these governments be towards the USA? The administration keeps stating that we must stay in Iraq for the long haul but in reality how long before the government there kicks us out?
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Rumsfeld should try the new strategy of doing something right, then telling the truth to independent reporters. Then "the good news" will "be believed".
--
make install -not war
That is exactly what Rumsfeld wants. White propaganda. I mean, the Pentagon defended the Iraqi story plant thing by saying "everything we say is true".
... unless I was involved in some kind of weird human pyramid shit while I was there and came back home packed in ice.
So another words, say me and a bunch of troops brake down your door at 2am, shoot your father, tear up the place and take you to a horrible prison for six months and later releace you. You learn that they were looking for terrorists and real sorry for your father and gave your children some rations before they left, then Rumsfeld could say:
"We are helping the Iraqi people by fighting terrorists and feeding the Iraqi children."
Nothing he said was untrue, but your father is dead, you were in prison for six months and someone came into your house and busted the place up.
If some Iraqis came and busted up my house in the middle of the night and took me to prison, I know I'd have an IED with their name on it. Once I got out of prison that is....
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
Yeah, they're wrong, and you are right. That makes a fuckload of sense.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Anti-Americanism != reporting the revolting things perpetrated by the US military and/or government in the name of the US.
Who says that unbribed news stories aren't biased to start with? Perhaps bribing results in more fair stories being published.
In 2004, the US government launched Alhurra, a 24-hour propaganda news network that was created to counter Aljazeera.
Maybe Rumsfeld didn't get the memo, but that's not surprising considering that he doesn't even use e-mail.
In order to keep a sense of unexpectability on slashdot, for which I suspect the Orwell quotes will soon appear. Allow me to present... A Disney quote!.
-- If you can dream it, you can do it.
if many people start saying"begs the question" while meaning "raises the question" as long as the receiving party understands then it was used properly.
"Our enemies have skilfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but... our country has not," he said. Mr Rumsfeld said al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists were bombarding Muslims with negative images of the West, which had poisoned the public view of the US.
How is it possible for al-Qaeda to be so far ahead of us in PR when we have entire industries built on PR and marketing??? Or is it because we are in fact doing a shitty job? Pictures from Abu Ghraib weren't simply made up by the media. Someone in our leadership screwed up (notice how they sacked the soldiers but few officers) and the TRUTH go out. The truth will get out eventually.
The US must fight back by operating a more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine, or risk a "dangerous deficiency," he said.
No, the US must fight back by doing a better job instead of trying to distort the truth. We've already lost a ton of credibility when no WMDs were found. A propaganda machine isn't going to help. It's make people believe us even less and then we'll truly be in a "world of shit". Rumsfeld and our leadership need to get it through their heads that saying "2 + 2 = 5" a million times isn't going to change the fact. Face it, we're a foreign country in someone else's land. That's not going to make people happy. When things don't improve like we've promised and car bombs start going off, they're going to be pissed. Remember how ridiculous the Iraqi PR minister was when he try to tell everyone that Americans are being defeated as our tanks moved into Baghdad? That's how Rumsfeld is going to look when he get this PR machine going.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Why the hell are we putting these political stories up now? Bad enough that we do it at all, but Slashdot is fast becoming a kind of geeky Daily Kos; Taco and all you other editors...you guys have to be approving this stuff. Non-technical political articles shouldn't be posted, simply because this isn't the place for them. What's next? Stories about the CIA bombing the Twin Towers on Bush's orders? A guest column from Michael Moore? What's else?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Because while all that is said can be considered "factual" (to certain people), not all that occured was said.
So, a different source could publish more factual information on the event and your propaganda drive would fail.
And THAT is the core problem when dealing with propaganda. It only really works when YOU are the one seen as providing the most accurate information.
Even if you're lying, the lies have to be perceived as factual.
Right now, Al Jazeera is perceived as providing more facts and fewer distortions ("lies") by the Iraqi people (and others).
because it's worked so well at home!
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
Unless they buy all international news outlets and impose strict control on them, find a way to ban reporting of their attrocities altogether (persecute underground/independent reporting), filter out or censor internet communications, and crash dissent on an international scale, they might as well try to empty the sea with a tea spoon.
American hubris at a grandiose scale. The informed citizen will read a report about another massacre perpetrated by the american arrogance and then a report of how an american hero saved a dairy cow from certain death in the killing fields of iraq and somehow the latter will weigh over the former? Sure if your name is Joe Sixpack and you live around 38 00 N, 97 00 W...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
It's easy to create convincing propaganda if the war's running well for you. It's more believable, and thus is more readily believed.
If you see your friends fall left and right, and your country tells you it's fine and everything's running as planned, and your opponent tells you you're about to lose, who do you believe?
Unfortunately, it doesn't run that well for the US. So the credibility of their propaganda could be a little bit lower.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While I do not like some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, this is of no bother to me. Fighting propoganda with propoganda is always a constant. Propoganda has a very pure definition from both sides. Basically, you are stating your point of view with not facts or education to support it. Given that Al Qaeda uses propoganda in such a HUGE (and I mean in terms of reaching hundreds of millions of uneducated poor) way, it seems totally obvious that we use propoganda in the short-to-medium term in exchange. To me, it makes complete sense to use propoganda in certain parts of the world. I see the point because there are so many hundreds of millions who are not as educated as those of us here on this forum.
I am a huge believer in the case that has been made that corporate investment (plants) in the mid-east and Africa will have huge benefits for world-wide peace over time. I am not opposed to UAE taking over port control in our 6 ports here in the US. I am not scared of so-called terrorists. You?
There is NO SUCH THING AS RELIGIOUS OR CULTURAL WARS (such as cartoon wars or wars with Islam, etc.). It does not exist. Every war and dispute is about "HAVE and HAVE NOT." Always has been and will always be. This has been displayed again by free trade with the far east and South America, etc.
Differneces in religion and so-called-culture are brought up only by over-zealous leaders with personal agendas. These issues are used only to fuel a fire. Religion is only ever used as a weapon instead as a reason to go to war. Go to ware for "stuff", and get your people to go to war over "cartoons". And, that last sentence works both ways.
Moe
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
This isn't journalism, this is slashdot.
The author states: In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists
Perhaps I'm the only one, but to me the author seems to imply that this is a new phenomena. Hardly.
Propaganda operations are common, particularly in other-than-war operations where winning public approval/disapproval for whatever policy, leader, or nation is important.
They've been used by and against the US to great effect - the movie JFK, for example, was based off a book by Jim Garrison. Most of Garrison's findings in his book are the result of Soviet propaganda about CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination. The US used propaganda extensively in its WWII operations to encourage the enemy to surrender, and the Soviets used it against the US to try to break the back of the Marshal plan and move communist parties into power in France and Italy. It encouraged many Iraqi soldiers to surrender rather than fight in 1991, greatly reducing the number of casualties on both sides.
Information is powerful and can greatly change perceptions or, at least, cause some confusion. It is a legitimate weapon - one which can often acheive its objectives without shedding blood. To set it aside is foolhardy.
That said, it must be used carefully. Blowback must be avoided, and more must be done to prevent that. It must be used with restraint - something that certainly has not always happened.
To say, "well, if we play nice, everyone else will" is foolishness. I'm not going to defend every action of the present or any previous administration, as there is a great deal to disagree with on all sides, but the /. consensus is to throw propaganda out completely.
The simple fact is that the enemy's talking and doing the same thing. Our silence - not even our adopting the stance the enemy wants us to adopt and becoming perfect global citizens, a utopian prospect at best - will shut him up. In a world where one of our greatest threats comes in the form of ideology rather than solid weapons, we should be ready to fire back and blunt that ideology through non-violent means. If we grease a palm or two on the way, so be it.
The final irony is, of course, that the real place where government funding WOULD be appropriate when it comes to media, namely the Public Broadcasting System is being cut in the current budget, by the tune of 64 million. Public media systems like that (think BBC, CBC, etc.) actually might benefit the citizenry by giving an alternative and less sensationalist based viewpoint. But no, we don't want to fund those, let's get it on with the propaganda instead ! Man, America, your priorities are so messed up.
To compare what other nations spend on their public media systems compared to Americans check this out.
I am sick of everyone sucking up to the "nation" of Islam and defending their "rights" when Islam has absolutely no tolerance for any other religion or way of life.
Most people aren't going to see Islam for what it is until they're put in front of a firing squad for not bowing to Allah. It's sad that on Slashdot we have people bashing Christians at the drop of a hat but defending the Islamic military front. When's the last time Christians stoned a woman for infidelity? The Muslims probably did it today... and that's not considered an extreme to these people, it's the norm.
You're free to feel that "that's their way" but this radical Islamic movement is spreading like wild fire and when push comes to shove there will be no debate, no vote and no tolerence for the non-Islamic.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This story begs the question of how often the phrase "begs the question" can be misused.
After reading the headline I immediately had the thought 1984 pass through my mind. Slashdot is good at promoting that kind of thought. Then I went and read the article. And you know what? Rumsfeld is right. In many respects we in the west are losing the war of ideas with facist islam. I think it is very cynical and one-sided to call what Rumsfeld is talking about "propaganda" while conveniently neglecting to recognize that these islamofacists such as Al Qeada and similar groups in Iraq are already recognizing the tremendous power of propaganda and are using it on us. Do we recognize this? If we truly value our western society, free and open as it is, patriot act notwithstanding, then we should be very alarmed that somehow more and more people are becoming convinced of these other points of view that directly threaten our very way of life. If anything the cartoon stuff should illustrate that clearly. While I think the cartoons were in very poor taste, the fact that a few radical imams and clerics have managed to stir up a couple hundred million people over a simple drawing should be setting off some huge warning bells in our minds.
So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them. And that is the very definition of propaganda. Even Slashdot is really propaganda. It's not a bad thing; it's just the free expression of ideas with the intent to convince others of these ideas' legitimacy (trolls and OS religious zealots notwithstanding). I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!
So For those that don't care to read the article, Rumsfeld is merely saying that these people, who have sworn to destroy the west if they can, are using propaganda much more effectively than we are. We need to be better arguers (hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East), and come up with better ways to help people see that having a totalitarian, facist, Islamic state is *not* going to bring about any benefit to them in terms of people or religion.
While I have huge problems with our current administration, I do understand the Middle East, and I recognize that some things have to be done. I greatly fear what will happen as these aberations of Islam continue to spread. As we can see from the Denmark fiasco, it's not just America that is being targeted. Islam is at a cross-roads. Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads to bring back the original, peaceful meaning of Islam. That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.
Did you actually read what Rummy is proposing?
From the end of TFA:That sounds really freakin' nerdy to me.
They're talking about creating a radio, tv and print framework in whatever country he has a problem with.
It's relatively easy for the U.S. to blast propaganda into Cuba, since they aren't that far away, but it is a completely different story when you're trying to push information into countries like Iran or Syria.
Think about the technical side of deploying his 'framework'. I bet that would be News for Nerds
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
A Russian and an American meet over a round of drinks, and start talking about freedoms in their countries. The American begins by saying: We have the absolute freedom of speech. I can stand in front of the White House, and say "Bush Sucks", and nobody can touch me! They will even show me on the TV!
Well, says the Russian, we got that too! I can stand in the Red Square and say "Bush Sucks", and nobody will touch me either.
What is the bottom line of this joke? Well, saying that Fox News is fair and balanced because they bash Arabs is like saying Russians are free because they bash Americans.
Use your brain, its a bit hard to grasp right away.
The only thing that would make a difference would be to actually change their foreign policy to be less aggressive and unilateral, and to treat the rest of the world as partners to be co-operated with in good faith, rather than as marks to be subjugated/exploited/suppressed. Trying to solve the problems by propaganda alone is merely putting lipstick on a pig, and won't fool anyone.
Of course, the above won't happen any time soon, because it would involve sacrificing much of the profit that our current policies squeeze out of the third world.
(disclaimer: this isn't meant to be flamebait or a troll, it is merely my honest appraisal of the situation)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
http://www.democracynow.org/ itunes link http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPodcast?id=73802554
...is do not call it a propaganda machine.
Just broadcast Fox News over there.
That is all.
Well, that and they'd like to categorize the people who criticize them as "terrorists."
Once the public accepts that "propaganda is necessary" and "this is a war of ideas," they'll see that as a mandate to crack down on the "enemy ideas."
Under this government's preferred reading of current law, you are technically providing support to terrorists by criticizing American leaders. All they need is a slightly more scared public; then they can get down to the important business of arresting political prisoners. (Not that they aren't doing this already to a degree; they've just so far limited it to Arabs because it's more acceptable to the xenophobic masses.)
Let's face it. The value of propaganda lies in its credibility. Or rather, the readiness of people to believe it.
To convince your own population is easy. That's how the nazi propaganda managed to keep the Germans in line even when it should've been obvious that the war is lost. They've been brainwashed for so long, and it WAS actually more or less true what they heard until about 1941, so they believed it.
When you try to convince your opponent, or at least an "undecided" person, you can't start with lies. You have to use truth, in other words, you have to first of all put some action before your words. Promises won't work. They've heard promises before, from Al Quaida and their former government. They have heard lies before. And people who have been subject to heavy propaganda only to have it revealed as lies are very resilent against this kind of tactic.
Ask anyone in eastern Europe.
So first of all, you have to put some "good" actions into place, then you can use your media to stress their existance and use this in the war for the minds. And I hope Rummy has this in mind, not some half-assed promises and long-term goals that nobody cares about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is very much about more than cartoons. The west has been manipulating the middle east for years, and continues to do so to this day. Muslims in the middle east have every right to hate the governments and businesses of the west, as they've been looked down upon and toyed with for years. They have been exploited, we did put basically all of the puppet governments in place, we are continuing to support Israel who is continuing to behave badly. The west has also been scapegoated for so many years that the we are now seen as the cause of a lot of things which do fall on the feet of corrupt or indifferent governments.
But the outcry for violence against westerners by Muslims has been atrocious. "Behead the infidels" "Kill those who make fun of Mohammed," etc. They called for violence, they killed people, they've been killed... it's a stupid situation. And instead of taking it to the people who are actively trying to wring the middle east dry, they attack the Danish. The Danish. The only thing the Danes ever killed anyone with was delicious confectionaries.
It is going to be difficult to convince people that the middle eastern countries are ready to sit at the international table with the rest of the world and behave like civilized people when they're running around threatening to chop people's heads off and burning down embassies over a newspaper cartoon.
The fact that it is a newspaper cartoon makes it all the worse: there might not be a tradition of this in the muslim world, but in the West the newspaper cartoon is officially the lowest, dirtiest, least funny form of political communication. They're always poor in taste and poor in execution. They're the Fox News of cartoons.
And so, of course, we joke about it. That's the western way of expressing displeasure with something. That's our way of letting someone know when they've gotten too serious. You're allowed, in the west, to expose basically any viewpoint so long as it is funny. That's how gay people came to be accepted in our culture, and before that, women. You can expose anyone to anything so long as it is funny.
I think the western view of the situation was well-summed-up by a fark poster
"You know what is blasphemous in my religion? Burning down embassies and killing people."
The ______ Agenda
Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.
Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
any riots in the usa.
I think the whole thing is a lot deeper than a cartoon.
The cartoon thing is just the spark the real problem is the way they are viewed around the world.
unfortaunatly they are acting exactly the way the rest of the world views them.
You see, after seeing all these riots I began to fear... what happens if all muslims are like the Wahabi? Sometimes I've even had the thought of WWIII beginning because of something like this. Specially after a) Iran enriching uranium, and b) Hamas getting elected.
How plausible this would be? I know not all muslims are like the Wahabi you speak of, but how permissive are all muslims with them as to let them riot without anybody punishing them?
Are my fears unfounded? Thank you.
(Knowing this is offtopic, I wish you could at least mail me, my e-mail acct is in my profile)
It was a blatantly political hit piece, painting Rumsfeld and the administration in Gestapo-like terms. If you're going to support that kind of activity here, then be honest about it. Don't smother it with a thick layer of bullshit, and go "no, it was a technical article, really".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
One "aw shit" wipes out a whole bunch of "attaboys".
It isn't that we don't do nice things for them. It isn't that they don't know about them.
It's that we also do a lot of things they don't like. And we seem to not care very much that they don't like them.
fox isn't enough.
Approximately 1 American life for 100 Iraqi lives
The Raven
What? FOX News went off the air?
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
... is needed is HONESTY?
Oh wait... that would fuck up 98% of the worlds beliefs.
Hmmm... maybe its time for that.
At one time Islam was the strongest force behind human advancement, gathering knowledge of all kinds and developing it further as well as being productive with such knowledge. Islam was considered of the highest quality products and education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam
then an ottoman feeling the pressure to go to war in his royal ?(or whatever you want to call it) position, though there wasn't a real cause for it, started the downfall of islam in going to war.
Knowledge begets knowledge... and specific knowledge, such a war knowlegde, begets its own kind.
War is destructive and the opposite of productive....
Just ask father physics and mother nature. They are very persistant in telling you, no matter how much you don't listen.
Shouldn't that be 24/7 propaganda machine?
..US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims.
The scope is significantly larger than the Muslim and Arabic countries. Poll.
...because actions speak louder than your words.
(oh? perhaps the actions are talking too loudly?)
Slashdot is my favorite site, open source software, a Linux admin and avid BSD user. I have lost some respect for slashdot today when its posting political spin including a link to aljazeera no less to prop up the credibility of the story, There is plenty of sites out there for the political spin. ....disappointed
AlJazerra is nothing but pro violent Muslim TV. You don't blow it up, you make an Anti-violent Muslim TV station.
God spoke to me.
MTV europe is available to anyone with an 18 inch dish.
We will own the arabs children.
They will sell themselves for a look a Tiffany Spear's boobs.
Once the brain rot sets in to their younger generation it's over, we win.
Nobody will blow themselves up when the new Backdoor boys CD is shipping NEXT WEEK!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"The only thing the Danes ever killed anyone with was delicious confectionaries."
They were Vikings you goose!
http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm
Actually, Wessex was not able to absorb all of England, for as it began to do this, the Vikings arrived. This started with the sacking of the Monastery at Lindisfarne, in Bernicia, in 793. Eventually, Northumbria, East Anglia, Essex, and about the north-eastern half of Mercia were overrun and became part of the Danelaw. At first the Vikings raided, sacked, and carried off slaves, or were bought off with "protection" money -- "Danegelt" -- but then Danes and Norwegians began to establish their own Kingdoms. They also passed around to Ireland and the Isle of Man and began encroaching from the west on Wales and England. This finally led to the outright annexation of England to Denmark by King Canute in 1016, though the Danish Kings only lasted until 1042. A fair number of Danish words ended up in English, like "skiff," which is simply the Danish cognate of the English word "ship."
...how much media that we get exposed to is effectively propaganda?
We must replace google, yahoo, msn et cetera with a Patriot Search Engine to ensure that Government-Approved Information is delivered to your desktop!
It can also that your search terms are automatically submitted to the government for analysis, without the risk of judicial oversight, congressional enactments, or probable cause. This will make your even more secure from terror, terrorism and terrorists!
Surely if you are a true patriot with nothing to hide and interested only in The Truth As Patriots Know It To Be, you will use Patriot Search today. If you don't, then surely in the interests of security someone will have to find out why.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
When I first saw this headline I immediately thought, "That what FOX News is doing." Now I guess he's pretty unhappy with them as it seems like the only people who are paying attention are in the US, and not Iraq.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
For a moment there I thought they were talking about implanting a 24 hour propaganda machine in the US and then I remembered we already have Fox News.
Incompentant Middle Eastern governments use religous furvor to cover up for their own lack of up to date and relevant policies. They are no more representatives of Islam than the inhabitants of Bloody Kansas were of Christianity. It all goes to show what happens when you are too arrogant/conservative/hateful to have adequate societal venting mechanisms like professional sports, Mecca or enough Funny sitcoms
Just to add to the topic, there's quite a fascinating documentary about Al Jazeera, which followed the journalists and news staff around during the American invasion, asks them about what they do, how and why they do it, and so on. It's called Control Room, and if you have any interest in this sort of thing, I think it's a must-see film whether you agree with the conclusions or not.
Come on now. There's plenty of reason to jump on the present administration but this isn't one of them. Every company, every public figure, every organization with an ounce of good sense takes a bit of care with public relations. They have to do so, otherwise folks, organizations and other countries who mean them harm and no good will own the field. If you are the United States military and you only let the liberal pressdanistas define what is reported and said and discussed about you then you're going to have major public relations problems. In other words, if that next door neighbor of yours who doesn't like you is the only one who speaks about you to anyone and everyone guess what everyone is going to think about you? It would be a good idea for you to be able to speak for yourself about who you are and the military in the United States, run by elected civilians, should be able to do the same thing. The very fact that so many of you automatically run to the 'propaganda' tag instead of the 'public relations' tag goes to show that the effort at public relations is needed.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FIG FB00.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db has a story about Overstock.com.
==Begin quote==
In its most recent quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said its net loss for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2005, widened to $18.41 million, up from a loss of $10.63 million during the same period the previous year. Net cash provided by operations was negative $28.15 million for the recent period, a sharp turn from $9.53 million cash generated the previous year.
An upgrade of the company's information technology system that Byrne said was "the equivalent of a heart, lung and kidney transplant" didn't go smoothly. In September, the company said it hadn't loaded new products onto its Web site in five weeks.
==End quote==
So rather than admitting that they screwed up...
==Begin quote==
Patrick Byrne, the Internet retailer's chief executive officer, has called short selling of his company's shares -- essentially a bet their price will fall -- a conspiracy orchestrated by a "Sith Lord." He later likened the conspiracy to an organization structured like al-Qaida and said his stock has been targeted by "naked short-sellers," a practice he said has ties to Italian, Russian and Israeli mafia.
==End quote==
If Overstock ran their operation properly and showed a profit next quarter, the naked short-sellers would be in for a world of hurt, financially. Instead, Mr. Byrne is whining about web boards just like Darl McBride whines about Groklaw and Rumsfeld whines about Al Jazeera.
The USA seems to have the same mentality. The Bush administration doesn't admit that they earned their bad reputation by invading a country that they knew didn't have WMD, and holding prisoners incommunicado and torturing them. Rather than actually acting kinder-and-gentler, the US wants propaganda to show that it's kinder and gentler.
That mentailty seems to be pervasive in the USA. Overstock and SCOX have had bad financial results. But they blame their falling stock prices on web boards and short sellers. If a company is found to be distributing spyware, they'll SLAPP the anti-spyware companies that fingered them. And let's not forget how spam^H^H^H^H ethikul email marketeers SLAPPed the MAPS RBL into uselessness.
Corporate USA, and its puppet administration, seem to believe that rather than acting nicer, they merely have to spend money on propaganda, and lawyers for injunctions to shut down websites that expose their misdeeds. They're acting uncannily like Soviet Russia, which spent 10 times as much money trying to jam BBC broadcasts as the BBC spent on broadcasting to the Soviets. Remember what happened to the USSR.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Call me old-fashioned, but don't actions speak louder than words? They're also often less expensive to maintain.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
"But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious."
Sorry, but I'm not buying that one anymore. That argument just doesn't hold water when Muslims are rioting from Nigeria to Indonesia. Futhermore, isn't the culture in these countries defined, to a great extent, by Islam?
I think many in the West are finnaly getting wise to what the "religion of peace" is all about. After the Van Gogh murder, the subway attacks, the French riots, and now the "cartoon riots", I think many of use who once felt that islam was being portrayed unfairly are reconsidering our position.
These cartoons were originally published back in September and did not elicit any response. Only now when the Danish
representative to the UN is slated to head the board that decides investigation and punishment for countries like Iran, did Syrian operatives start whipping up this sentiment.
So later when this rep, who is pro-America, tosses his vote in to punish Iran, the jihadists can say, "See! He hates our religion, remember the cartoons from his country, he is anti-muslim and we reject his authority."
The sad part is that most of the protesters don't even realize they're being played. Of course, they're mostly young, unemployed thugs, so I guess that's not so odd, after all.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
I think it's pretty safe to say we already lost that battle. Here are a few suggestions, which you'll continue to ignore:
Unfortunately, the right wing's stupidity got us into this but it isn't going to get us out.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I do not think it is really wise to talk about those strategies in public, as later every news item that is favorable to the USA may be dismissed as "propaganda paid by Washington" and hence look unreliable.
Why can't
It's so nice to see them recognizing that public opinion is such an important battle field.
But are they really doing all that they can do win this battle? No. Take, for example, the prison torture scandal. I don't care whether or not the response to the scandal was appropriate or not; that is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the world thinks the scandal is relevant. Pulling a Clinton by trying to play technicalities with the definition of torture does not help. Duking it out with McCain on the issue does not help. Forget propaganda! If you can't make the right gestures, you won't be going anywhere.
In many societies (particularly in Japan), it is considered the honorable thing for the guy on top to publicly apologize, accept responsibility, and/or resign even if something was totally the fault of some underling. Did Rummy do any of that? Nope.
1: Put properly trained people in charge of prisoners (no more pictures of naked prisoners and killings/beatings) 2: Stop encarcerating people without a proper trial and without being judged by a jury of their peers 3: Follow the Geneva Convetions completely and unequivocally instead of "for the most part" as Rumsfeld famously stated
If only we'd had an effective propaganda machine in the 1960s-70s, we'd have won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. Who knew?
Islamo-Fascist countries in the Middle East have government-run media that portrays western culture negatively. Regardless how you feel about the US, we are a free country in fact the majority of the media is liberal and anti-establishment. In these countries both sides are never reported and the government engages in one-sided anti-Western journalism. Rumsfield is simply talking about the US Govt responding to OTHERS propoganda, and you can add BBC to that list.
Kim Jong-Il swears by it. Loudspeakers all over the countryside so you can't escape from the low voice telling you that you love your government and your government loves you (despite starving you), creating subliminal messages...
That's the pattern America surely wants to follow. Both here and there.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
I thought you went to war with the propaganda machine you have, not the propaganda machine you'd like to have. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In terms of the Taliban, they support a minor interpretation of Islam. It is akin to what Christian nutcases like Pat Robertson sound like when they say Prime Minister Sharon deserves what he gets because he gave up land to the Palestinians. I doubt any sane majority in the US would ever think that and you don't see Muslims labeling all Christians as fanatics.
Pat Robertson never drove planes into buildings, he's never had an entire country under his control that not only condoned but sponsored terrorist activity, Pat Robertson has, to the best of my knowledge, never killed a political or religious opponent.
I'm trying to understand your point of view but you're comparing apples and oranges. Sure, there is extremist Christianity but what's the worst that's come from it in the last few decades? In history? Sure, but what about today? Christians have no real power today in comparison to the type of thing that went on in the Taliban's Afghanistan.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
If you go back and read Islamic history, the rights many women enjoy in the west were already being utilized by Muslim women we'll over a thousand years before Europe even caught on. Google will show you the various councils taking place in Europe deciding whether women were actually incarnations of the devil right around the time Islam came out. Christianity and the Bible specifically blame Eve for tempting Adam and then the punishment has been women going through childbirth. Islam disagrees with all of this and you must be blind not to see these things.
Case in point, my family is Muslim and the women in my family have been successful business women for hundreds of years. A more modern example is my aunt who is the chairman on one of the largest banks in one particular Muslim country. Never forget that it is the West that is catching up to Islam, not the other way around.
I know people like you tend to make large blanket statements focusing on tiny examples to give the impression that your arguments have any worthwhile meaning. As a Muslim, your speech sounds ignorant to me because you don't live in a Muslim country nor do you have family there. All you do is buy into the propoganda. Is there a problem with women's rights all over the world even today? Yes and that includes the US.
As far as the tourist example, I'd like to ask you a quick question. Some African tribes have women who don't cover their chests. When traveling to the United States, what do you think would happen if they walked on the street like that? They would be arrested. I know that is an extreme example, but it illustrates a point. The point being that in Islamic nations conservatism is the rule. Isn't it our own cliche that says "when in rome, do as the romans do"? I know that my fellow westerns always focus on women having to cover themselves in public because it goes against our American cultural norms. However, I challenge you to go to a Muslim woman in the United States or abroad and ask her if you can liberate her by removing her headscarf. Almost 99.9% of women will scream, call the police, etc. to show you that they CHOOSE to wear it.
You bring up the entire thing about working. Well, under Saddam women worked but he is a bad dictator that Reagan and company supported. Pakistan, India, and Iran have women that work too. Iran has women in parliment. Pakistan has already had a female head of state which America can't claim yet. So tell me, are you going to focus on minor examples and blow them up to represent 1 billion Muslims? I hope not because I'm sure we wouldn't like it done to us.
Lastly, the Prophet Muhammad's own wife Khadija was one of the most successful and powerful business women in Arabia. Are you going to tell me the Prophet's wife got it wrong?
Nerds especially like machinery that does useful things, like serving web pages or delivering email. Political machinery sometimes helps deliver mostly-safe streets, kinda-sorta-enforceable contracts, a near-stable currency and banking system, and all the other goodies that allow nerds to survive.
Politics is also a high-maintenance machine, kind of like a Fiat only worse. Without constant attention, politics quickly goes bad and produces things like $YOURFAVORITEEXAMPLE.
Politics is well worth nerdly attention, especially in cases like this one where it may affect information flow.
This video will freak you out!. google "rumsfeld disease".
Sometimes I've even had the thought of WWIII beginning because of something like this. Specially after a) Iran enriching uranium, and b) Hamas getting elected.
A) Iran enriching Uranium does not correspond to them building a bomb, or even wanting to use it. However, just like the first wave of nuclear armamant race, everyone wants it. Afterall, india, pakistan, and Israel have it, why not Iran? What's to protect Iran in, say 10-20 years, when OIL is even more scarce than it is now, and some western coutry with an oil-starved economy to upkeep decides to invade Iran in order to "free the local citizens" and "promote democracy"?
I must add though, that I do not approve of them having a nuclear bomb, and I hope they never do, but my point is that an issue needs to be looked at from more than one point of view.
B) Hamas startig WWIII? Hmmm. Not that I like their tactics, but their only aim is Palestian's rights. As far as I can understand from their propaganda, their enemy is Israel and those who support her (usually the USA). They do not have an army, tanks, planes or anything except home-made rockets and guns. Somehow, I don't think they're capable of even defeating Israel, let alone start WWIII. Their biggest weapon is propaganda, and they seem to use it effectively: they managed to get Israel to withdraw from Gaza. That took them about 10 years. Maybe in 20-30 years, the Israelis will decide to give up the rest of the land they invaded and occupied in 1967.
How about actually reporting ALL the news that's going on there.
Not just the bad things.
The American people have such a screwed up idea of what that whole country is like... You'd think that ever square inch of that place was ready to explode, rather than what's happening in a relatively small area where Saddam loyalists and jihadists (who came over the border) are right now.
Doesn't Fox News run 24/7?
The saying: "Every boy can be President" is complete, utter BULLSHIT...and everyone in the world knows that the USA lives on GREED! The USA is run by hypocrites, that were elected by special interest groups while most voters stay home apathetically watching HBO off their Satellite dishes and hoping that "Big Brother" just leaves them alone...
Prehaps if we actually LIVED what we CLAIMED, we'd have more credibility with others...but of course, our Govt. has enough problems getting cerdibility with it's own citizens these days!I don't know. But I'm sure able to remember the last time Christians murdered gynaecologists for doing their legal job. Or security guards, protecting their places of employment from radical Christians, or firebombing of such premises.
No matter of propaganda is going to whitewash crap. Crap is crap. Attack a country for false or stupid reasons, be so blatant about caring only about oil, and be so inept at maintaining social services, there is nothing short of outright brainwashing that is going to work.
Al Qaeda doesnt have to propagandize about how good they are, they just have to make the case the US is bad. And so far we have only ourselves to blame, we have been feeding them more ammunition than they could ever hope to generate by themselves.
That is perhaps because that is NOT our way.
Copy/Pasting some stuff from the Quran that i've posted here before
* Limits on war 2:190 And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors. * Can not say no to peace overtures 004.090 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). * Justice, Anti Hate 005.008 O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. * Restraint 002.194 The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves. * Kindness/Love for Just 060.008 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. * Sanctity of Life 5:32 If anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people
Simply because the extremists / mullah's are ascendant (and the US policies are providing them with more then enough Ammo for that.. note the rise of Islamist political forces in Pakistan and the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan) doesn't mean they represent Islam. They're simply brothers of the lying demagogues in the US (creationists?) who would be happy to distort anything they can (Islam/assigning blame to the West) to further their agenda.
Your rhetoric is Islamophobic
And your anti-Christian sentiments are any better? At least I can sample activities going on today, not looking back hundreds and hundreds of years to find offense. BTW: I'm not a Christian so why you chose to use them to slight only shows how much you are anti-Christian. If I'm a presumptuous ass you are no better.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
why not arm Parliament and Clinton and send 'em out into the Bush.
Damn, that would freak the funk!
An invasion of a sovereign country under false pretenses, the murder of thousands of the citizens of that country by the invading force, secret prisons, torture, extraordinary rendition, suspension of civil rights, domestic spying, shoot first ask questions later. Need I say more.
And what country is that? The US? The US is far from a Christian country. You show your obvious ignorance about both the US and Christians.
So, east coast, what's it feel like to be born again? What do they promise you when you go to heaven? What is all you have to do to be saved?
So, Anonymous Coward, what makes you think I'm Christian? I can tell you, you're dead wrong.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Did it ever occur to you that if your troops, not mine even though I live here, I disown them, they can be all yours, WEREN'T over there they wouldn't be getting shot at? Huh? Huh? Ever think of that? Have you noticed THEY invaded Iraq, and Iraq had NOTHING to do with any attacks on the US? Saddam was a medium level bad guy as middle eastern leaders go, why not invade all of the above? How about in Africa, south america, asia? You planning on invading everywhere there's a bad guy? That's THE BULK OF THE PLANET.
So far, US forces have killed more innocent civilians than saddam did, by the year. You got any excuses for that besides just mumbling "unfortunate collateral damage"? What would YOU do if some nation decided they were going to "regime change" and invaded the US, even if the current president du juor wasn't to your liking? Would you cooperate with them and be a quisling traitor, or fight them? And since when is it a legit war when there are no PRISONERS OF WAR? Just "detainees" with hoods over their heads, including women and children. How would YOU like your neighborhood invaded by people from another nation, using high tech killing methods including air strikes? And just kidnapping people and disappearing them? Would you think that was so cool you would go join up with them?
You can't have it both ways. You can't contend some other people are badguys when you are doing exactly the same thing. Give it up, the US government and military and it's leadership are AT BEST moronic, and worst, outright murdering thieving invaders who are ONCE AGAIN installing some puppet government, same thing they have been doing for over 100 years all over. Do you need a list? The difference is now we have the internet, so it's harder to lie to people. Before, they only had to control a few domestic media outlets to brainwash the population, now they have to contend with people having access to many and diverse news sources, and it gets so embarrassing for them to keep this up they need even more "official propoganda" outlets. If all those Iraqis really wanted us there, the so called "resistance" would be a pitiful few, as it is, the BULK of the Iraqi people want us out, and the resistance has been gaining strength in numbers, DESPITE all the murdering going down by US troops, who have shown they are perfectly willing to engage in murder, theft, and mass genocide like in Fallulah. You want to know WHY they got some many to join up the puppet iraqi police force? it's because WE DESTROYED THEIR ECONOMY and there's pitiful few jobs. And coincidently that's the ONLY way they are maintaining a pitiful recruitment goal in the US, where MOST of the "volunteers" are coming from destroyed manufacturing areas where entry level jobs that pay anything or have any benefits are few and far between because the same billionaire globalist idiots in charge decided it was a good idea to kill off the manufacturing base.
ARE YOU SEEING A PATTERN YET?
WAKE UP, you really DON'T have to be a tool of those idiots. They are playing both sides against the middle with this scam, to keep the civilian populations in iraq and the US dumbed down and defensive and under one or the other kind of terror in order to maintain their fatcat leadership poisitions. And they off people to do this! That makes them murdering thugs, so please don't support them. Egads man, read between the lines a little! This is not that hard to see!
about a CARTOON.
3,000 people murdered in the name of Islam and no worldwide Muslim led riots against this terrorist act committed against the West. Why not? Those extremist, Saudi funded mosques which originally brainwashed and recruited the hijackers as soldiers of Islam dominate the landscape in the Muslim world and Europe too. Maybe the only way we could appease Muslim anger is to allow another terrorist attack. Then they will party and dance in the streets like it's 9/11
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm
maybe if they did stone for infidellity, gold digging and cheating would go away! disclaimer, i'm neither christian or muslim.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
When's the last time Christians stoned a woman for infidelity? The Muslims probably did it today... and that's not considered an extreme to these people, it's the norm.
That's a pretty wide brush you're using there to tar all Muslims with.
When was the last time the US executed a mentally ill prisoner? The US probably did it this year, and they don't consider it to be morally wrong to execute someone without the mental capacity to understand what it was that they did wrong.
What do they say about glass houses and stones?
Shitdrummer.
So Slashdot is not only anti-MS, but they're anti-Bush/Iraq War?
He lamented that the Pentagon was losing the Information War; abroad in getting it's point of view across (Al Qaeda and bin Laden are losers, don't join Jihad essentially) and at home (the US is beating Al Qaeda).
In that he's right because the media by and large has actively taken sides with Al Qaeda. Regardless of how you feel about the decision to invade Iraq, we are fighting Al Qaeda there (and in Yemen and the Horn of Africa and Pakistan and Afghanistan and many other places). Without exception the Media in the US and the WEst has not been much distinguished from propaganda places like Al Jazeera.
During WWII Edward R. Murrow openly took sides with the British People; and helped American officials rewrite press releases for better efficiency. THAT sort of pro-US and pro-Allied attitude would get him drummed out of journalism today. Mike Wallace in a symposium decades ago browbeat the late Peter Jennings into admitting he'd not warn US forces of an ambush so he could get the story and that journalists were not supposed to take the side of the US.
When Muslim fanatics of Al Qaeda behead hostages, the media will not show it. When the Muslim fanatics bring down the towers and people jump from them holding hands, the Media won't show it. When Muslim fanatics hold up signs saying "Freedom go to hell" or "God Bless Hitler" the media won't show it (only the Web will).
Part of it is abject fear and submission by the media, acting essentially as Al Qaeda's press agent because they fear being murdered (as Tom Friedman and Jordan Eason of CNN admitted). Relaying blatant propaganda against the US brings zero retaliation from the US.
Rumsfeld was merely being honest in saying that the Pentagon can't get it's message out that it does have successes in killing or degrading the Al Qaeda leadership and command. Instead the media runs phony stories of Korans flushed down toilets or various propaganda allegations of "Torture" at Guantanamo.
Rumsfeld advocates using the Web and the internet to get the Pentagon message out since the Media is either abjectly afraid or on the other side in the fantasy of "journalism as citizen of the world." In this I think he's right, communication wise.
It's a lot better to make Al Qaeda seem the loser than encourage more terrorism when Iran likely already has nukes, and the danger is losing a couple of our cities and ALL of theirs. Getting the message out that we won, so stop fighting can save a lot of lives.
When was the last time the US executed a mentally ill prisoner? The US probably did it this year, and they don't consider it to be morally wrong to execute someone without the mental capacity to understand what it was that they did wrong.
Infidelity is now on the same level as murder? Good talking to you guy. Move along.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Should read: "Rumsfeld Requests Another 24-hour Propaganda Machine"
Because, really, when the administration can spin "We leaked the identity of an active CIA agent, which is tantamount to treason" into "It's the fault of the media for publishing the leak we gave them," along with, "Oh yeah, it's no problem that there are warrantless wiretaps going on; the real problem is that someone spilled the beans," and who can forget "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" -- dammit, the whole government is already a 24-hour propaganda machine, and its target audience is the American citizen.
If they want to add another audience, they're going to need another machine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat, and I am generally prepared to give the bemefit of the doubt. But I have to call shenanigans on this administration.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Why am I not surprised you missed my point entirely? Oh, that's right, because it was nuanced and not black and white.
Shitdrummer.
Why am I not surprised you missed my point entirely?
Your point was not missed. It was invalid. If you honestly equate murder to infidelity than you have a serious problem. If you can't see the difference I can't help you.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It's odd that all these posts come from ACs. If my actions make me seem to be anti-Islamic than the parent poster is definitely anti-Christian. Deal with it.
But it's hard for me to take any of it seriously coming from an AC. Infact I'm very skeptical all of these haven't come from the same poster.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Really? When was the last time that happened? Do you have a cite?
Just yesterday 15 Christians including three children and an priest were killed in Nigeria during as retaliation for the cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark.
Where's the comparable actions by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus?Kinda vital to the discussion . . .
Don't take me for a Muslim apologist, I'm not. Some of this stuff is despicable. That being said, this
Thousands of people have died in [Nigeria] since 2000 in religious violence
is a bit of a stretch. Nigeria has issues with war, general lawlessness, abject corruption and violent crime - I think stating that it is fuelled by ... Shariah (sic) is taking causality a step too far.
In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
I think this is simply disingenuous. The United States certainly has propoganda organs, but I think it's indisputable that it also has the most free and open media community (circus) in the world.
I think Rumsfeld's point is more that, Fox news aside, every other media outlet in this country seems dedicated to 'taking down' the president in any way that they possibly can. In an era where a higher percentage of Washington reporters voted Democrat than REGISTERED Democrats, and where media networks formerly of some standing don't hesitate to run stories without research, plaigarize from web blogs, and outright fabricate evidence (Courier Font for the win, Dan) out of their irrational hatred of George Bush, I don't think it's suprising for a senior member of the administration to say that it would behoove the government to act more aggressively to get GOOD news about US efforts out and AROUND the anti-US media conglomerates.
-Styopa
Ok, seeing as though you took the time to reply again, I'll assume that you really did miss my point.
You are equating the entire Muslim world with the stoning of unfaithful women. I responded by equating all Americans with supporting the execution of mentally ill prisoners.
Both statements were so broad as to be virtually meaningless.
I'm not saying that some Muslims don't support stoning women, perhaps (probably?) even a majority of Muslims do in some areas. But until people realise that not all Muslims feel this way, the same as not all Christians support Intelligent Design or execution for heresy, there's no hope for reconciliation between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What we are fighting against, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is extremism and intolerance. Broad statements that "Muslims believe this..." or "Christians believe that..." aren't helpful. There are many different interpretations of Islam the same as there are many differt interpretations of Christianity.
It's easy to point fingers at the Muslim woman wearing a burqa and scream "her rights are being trampled by Islam", but how long ago was it that western women going to a beach, or even just going outside, had to be covered from ankle to wrist? And was it really that long ago (given the history of the Earth) that women were burned at the stake for being witches?
You rightly look at the stoning of unfaithful women as barbaric but demonise all Muslims over it. I look at the execution of mentally ill prisoners in the US as barbaric, but I recognise that there are many differing views on the subject in the US. Every Country/Religion has got some history that they're not (or at least shouldn't be) proud of.
Shitdrummer.
After all, the Islamofascists have ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, CBC, Der Speigiel, Le Monde, etc etc etc working for them.
Why can't those of us who would rather not submit and become dhimmis use the media to get our message out?
You know, it's all fun and self-pleasing to pose as "enlightened progressives" but at the end of the day do we really want to return to the 14th Century?
What?
not all Christians support Intelligent Design or execution for heresy
When is the last time someone was executed for heresy? This is a non-issue today.
there's no hope for reconciliation between Muslims and non-Muslims
Here's what I see... I see no hope for this in the first place. From what I've been seeing, and maybe some Muslims can enlighten me to the truth of this, is that if you're not a Muslim they'll treat you as a less of a person. I don't see where the Muslims are even making an attempt to reconcile in the first place.
Every Country/Religion has got some history that they're not (or at least shouldn't be) proud of.
But I'm dealing with TODAY. I agree, not every German is a Nazi and we shouldn't hold that over their heads especially since a majority of them weren't even alive at the time. But if this were 1942 my outlook on Germans as a whole would be much different. I'd like to think you can understand that.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
guess there are a bunch of us and I, too, agree with the other posters that you are an Islamophobe.
First, as long as I see all these posts coming from an AC you are not different people to me. I doubt that you are.
And if I'm an Islamophobe than the GP is just as much an anti-christian since they associated everything they didn't like going on here with Christians.
Oh well, this only helps to prove my point; Today if you're an "Islamophobe" you're treated like a sack of shit but if you're anti-Christian it's just fine...
If one is wrong so is the other. Until this changes there will be no change in the way things go on today. It's the attitude of the action. The GP is just as dogmatic as I seem to be.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
tell them allah is pissed and they need to quit with the jihad/extremeist/idealism before he drowns them like a one-legged leper colony living next door to Noah.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Muslims all around the world are burning down building and their religious leaders are calling for the death of those who created these cartoons. Ok, they are a radical minority...fair enough.
Want to know what my problem is? I have yet to hear the Ayatollahs (let alone one of them) denounce the violence. Hell, even the local leaders in countries but the US aren't even denouncing it. This would be like Christians getting all upset and threatening death (and committing it in the name of Christianity) and the pope having no comment or denouncing such violence.
My question to you is this. How do you maintain your faith when your religious figures do not denounce such violence for petty cartoon images? If I was you, I might look to another religion for spiritual guidance.
Life is not for the lazy.
. When I saw Cindy Shehan in Crawford calling our troops terrorists, I drove out there with 1000 other families and showed my disaproval of Cindy and my support for our troops and their families.
If you actually did support the troops, then you would be more upset that they were set up as terrorists by this administration. You would be pissed off that they were sent over their for an ivory tower intellectual scheme of world domination.
So, save it sparky. You don't give a flying fuck about the troops since you're obviously quite happy to see them disgraced by their CinC.
If you did you'd actually do something to support them rather than supporting their exploiters.
Jesus Christ I fucking hate fuckwad lying sacks of shit like you.
Get a spine, and get some integrity.
You really are ignorant if you believe most of the Muslims you hear about in the news really represent Islam, and that non-Muslims are not tolerated. How do you explain the fact that Spain was once ruled by Muslims for hundreds of years, during which it was one of the most prosperous places in Europe? Do you even realise that modern science came from Muslims, and that Europeans went to Spain to learn? Were the non-Muslims killed or persecuted in any way? And what about India?
:)
Don't look at the countries that you are told practice the Shariah and take that to be Islamic practice, because they don't, atleast, not in it's entirety. And don't take all the Muslims you see on TV, to be good representatives of Islam. The media choose carefully who they show, and what "news" they run, and being true representatives don't feature highly in their discisions.
I, personally, am tolerant to everyone, I've had friends from all over the place. I don't impose my views on anyone, and I don't belittle or attack their views. I don't have any Muslim friends who aren't tolerant of others. Tolerance has to run both ways, and it seems like there is improvement needed on both sides. What do you think when you see a bearded man? I get lots of looks as if people think I'm a terrorist.
One question, do you actually know any Muslims? If not, try make friends with one. I think you'll find that >99% are quite normal. Please don't take any offence to the contents or tone of what I've written, none was intended, although reading it through I realise I might cause some, but it's late and I need some sleep
But I'm dealing with TODAY. I agree, not every German is a Nazi and we shouldn't hold that over their heads especially since a majority of them weren't even alive at the time. But if this were 1942 my outlook on Germans as a whole would be much different.
So you're saying that in 1942 you would have believed that all Germans were Nazi's, but that over 60 years later you realise with hindsight that you would have been wrong. You see that not all Germans of that time were Nazi sympathisers.
Are you perhaps making the same mistake this time? Will you look back in 60 odd years and realise that you were wrong? That all Muslims aren't extremists that want to destroy the West?
Shitdrummer.
Ha! Nice attempt at trying to diversify yourself so much. Oh well, go on trolling if it makes you happy.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I explained it this way to my 9 year old.
He wanted to know why all these "bad Muslim people" were going around killing everybody. I told him that there's good people and bad people, and just because they believe in different Gods, or don't believe in God at all, that doesn't make them any better or worse than the rest of us.
I told him that, in one country, they elected a President who sent soldiers with huge big guns to kill people in another country, because he thought people in the other country had huge big guns of their own. When the President couldn't find the huge big guns in the other country, he said "That's OK. What I really meant was that they MIGHT ONE DAY get huge big guns, and we have to stop them doing that". Then he kept his soldiers in that country, killing people with huge big guns, because the people he was killing might one day get huge big guns of their own.
He also put people in jail in his own country, because he thought they might be bad people, but decided it was better if they didn't get to go to court in case he was wrong and they weren't bad people after all.
My son said "There's bad boys at school that bully the little kids. Why doesn't the teacher just lock them up too?". I explained to him that this isn't the way things work, and eventually bullies pick on an even bigger bully and get beaten up themselves. That way, bullies learn to stop being bullies. My son asked "What if this bully is the biggest bully in the whole world? There won't be anybody around to beat him up"
I also told my son that I know a lot of people in this President's country, and they're really nice people, but because they made a silly man President, lots of people in the world thought that everyone from that President's country was a bad person.
My son asked "Why did the nice people make a silly man President, and let him do all sorts of bad things to people in other countries? Once they found out the President was a bad person, why didn't they make someone else President instead?"
I told him I didn't know, and maybe he should be President instead.
15 Christians were killed by Muslims in Nigeria because cartoons were published in Denmark. Is that logic? I can't find a single reference to 15 "gynaecologists" being murdered at once ever. I asked for a cite if it had. The fact that once a long time ago one was killed is relevant as the perpetrator has been apprehended, convicted, and is serving his sentence and it appears that this type of crime is no longer happening. On the other hand, the fact that just yesterday 15 Christians were killed in Nigeria in retaliation for cartoons published in Denmark shows that this type of violence is not being dealt with and is an on-going problem.
Nigeria has issues with war, general lawlessness, abject corruption and violent crime - I think stating that it is fuelled by ... Shariah (sic) is taking causality a step too far.
Does the fact that the American South has problems with "general lawlessness, abject corruption and violent crime" excuse the killing of abortionists? To use your own argument, perhaps it "is taking causality a step too far" to blame Christians for this simply because it was a Christian who did it. It seems to me as if you are heavily into the Muslim apologist stage.
"In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?""
Sadly, it does not beg the question. It might raise a question though. Sure, you can say I am being anal about linguistics, but the meaning of words do matter. Frankly speaking, I do not see any logical fallacy in what Rumsfeld is saying and the posting makes no sense at all.
People really should know the meaning of expressions before using them. Given slashdot is a place where people who supposedly deal with logic on a daily basis hang out, this is even more inexcusable.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
That boggles the mind.
I can see why your mind is boggled since it is pretty certain that you are completely mistaken as to the intent.
It's more likely that the intent is to provide another source of news and views for the mass of Muslims & Arabs who are not committed to the violent Islamists cause. It might be a good thing if they had sources other than the hateful lies of the Islamists, and the government controlled media in the Middle East, which tends to spew some pretty vile things which you can see here. Muslim spokesmen regularly say that most Muslims want to live in peace. Maybe they will be more favorably inclined to so do, and to not assist the extremists, if they have access to news which sticks to being factual, or at least programming that doesn't regularly refer to Westerners as Crusaders, pigs and monkeys, call for the reconquest of Spain, applaud the exploits of terrorists bombing pizza parlors & pubs, etc. It is hard enough getting balance out of the American & European media. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this reported in the mainstream media. Arthur Chrenkoff's column listing good news from Iraq was practically unique, and not for lack of material. It is clear that if we don't speak up for ourselves, few if any there will.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
the fact that just yesterday 15 Christians were killed in Nigeria in retaliation for cartoons published in Denmark shows that this type of violence is not being dealt with and is an on-going problem
Other than the fact that 'that sort of crime' happens quite regularly, justice apparently moves swiftly in your world.
Does the fact that the American South has problems with "general lawlessness, abject corruption and violent crime" excuse the killing of abortionists?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I excused anything. The article you posted completely ignores the fact that there are many, many other issues at stake in Nigeria, and arbitrarily determines that those deaths must be as a result of 'religious violence'. You can't have one without the other: you feel happy to condemn Muslims because of acts x, y and z, and yet you don't need to condemn Christians because of x, y and z. You miss the point that I'm not blaming clinic bombers becase they are Christian, likewise I don't blame Muslim church burners because they are Muslim. If the church was such an affront to their religion, it wouldn't take a cartoon published to incite them to burn it down. They burned down the church because they were an angry mob, and angry mobs do stupid, and sometimes, evil, shit like that. If you want to do so, then fine, do so, but you're gonna have to wear Christians wearing the blame when the Army Of God http://www.armyofgod.com/ makes it their mission to 'kill abortionists for God'.
My take is neither is acceptable. Yours is that my example is brushed aside, because most of the people who commit such crimes have been tried and convicted, and you pull out a stupid example of something happening yesterday and rant and rave that 'nothing has been done!'
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage it's always interesting to see how the news is reported by the "arab cnn".
Oh sure, make your restriction set small enough to exclude Matthew Shepard, et al...
Thank you for giving another Muslim perspective. It is very clear that MUCH more communication between the West and the Muslim world is necessary. I don't think open propaganda is going to cut it, either.
... was moderated insightful proves you wrong.
Your post shows no evidence that the parent post was right or wrong. It shows NO evidence whatsoever of what you assert is true or not. However, it threw a ton of insults at the parent, and coincidentally, aligned with the groupthink that the rest of the flaming liberals on this site agree with. Therefore, it was modded up, despite having no redeeming value, but did agree with the anti-Bush sentiment. Therefore, your post proved the very thing that you were saying wasn't true is ACTUALLY TRUE!
In Soviet Russia...
Oh well i tried. Here is a linky
http://store.russiananimation.com/ansopr.html
From 1924 to perestroika the USSR produced more than 4 dozen animated propaganda films. They weren't for export. Their target was the new nation and their goal was to win over the hearts and minds of the Soviet people. Anti American, Anti Capitalist, Anti Fascist, some of these films are as artistically beautiful as the great political posters made after the 1917 revolution. A unique series. With a unique perspective. Includes commentary by a leading Soviet film scholar.
Mind you that is only 4 dozen dilms of propaganda in animated format for over 70 years
I support the Administration. I think Mr. Bush is doing a fine job. No, I'm not joking. I don't think he's Mt. Rushmore material, but I do think the majority opinion of him here is paranoid idiocy tempered only by urban liberal orthodoxy.
As for Slashdot, all opinions are tolerated except those that are conservative, americentric or at odds with the popularly accepted view in a given scientific field.
In other words, if you believe as you suggest that Slashdot is tolerant of all well-expressed views, you may be suffering from craniorectal inversion.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
So, as Americans, *we* are (partially) responsible for the genocide *and* we are responsible for blowing the shit out of lots of innocents supposedly to take out the whacko *we put in power*.
If we put him Saddam in power, don't we have a duty and responsibility to remove him from power? To correct our mistake, if you will?
People constantly criticize the US for supporting bad, violent, etc, leaders. Well, as soon as we remove one, that we did at one time support, why are people still upset at the US? Shouldn't you people congratulate us for finally recognizing at least ONE of our past mistakes and taking steps to correct it?
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Check out government newscasts from the Middle East (translated to English). It's like watching the other side's version of Fox News. al-Jazeera is way ahead.
The US should be encouraging al-Jazeera, not complaining about it. The US has little to fear from an honest press. (Bush may, but that's a personal problem.)
Another thing I want to point out.. that the word "Muslim" is about as descriptive as "Christian". There are as many kinds of muslim as there are kinds of christian. Baptist, Born Again, protestant, presbeterian, orthodox, catholic, etc. There are many differences between each of them.. Most of the terrorism, and a lot of the rioting is being caused by a particularly extremist sect that is deeply entrenched in Saudia Arabia, and was the backbone of the Taliban. Wahabism. It was founded by an Islamic scholar Abdul Wahab. I am not a wahabi. :)
This doesn't appear to be true. You're saying that most of the rioting is a result of Wahabism? I thought wahabism was mainly in Saudi Arabia and some other Persian Gulf countries only. The rioting has been happening in virtually every muslim country, including Iran (a Shia country not highly regarded by Wahabis).
It is not very clear why the rioting has been so widespread, and also why it's taken so long (after all, the cartoons appeared in september alst year!).
My gut feeling is that it is organised by people who will benefit from such widespread animosity to the West at this particular time.
I mean, this is certainly not the first time that the prophet has been "denigrated" or "insulted" or Islam insulted in the West. The question everyone needs to ask is why now? who benefits from all this?
Here, take your pick
+ deaths+in+iraq%2C+us&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=u tf-8
m
http://www.google.com/search?q=estimated+civilian
One at random
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.st
"by the year". The kill rates are going to be comparable. Direct, indirect, it all adds up. And to refresh memories, Saddam used to be our "ally" and we supported him and helped keep him in office when he was fighting the Iranians. And the Iranians became our "enemy" AFTER our spooks helped to off their elected leader who DARED suggest his nation should maybe get to keep 20% of the oil profits, so we then stuck that goon the most freeking exalted royal jerkoff the Shah in power, who's SAVAK organization made it EASY for the nutjob mullahs to recruit people.
c'mon, let's get real here. This is just constant and evolving heglian dialectic blood profits conjobs promulgated by these globalist goons. War is a racket.
Here's a thought, just STOP meddling with those people over there, they are just sick and tired of it. Let them sort their own crap out. How about we take that 200 BILLION a year this war is costing, some say it might go as high as two trillion, and invest it in alternative energy research instead, to free up this dependence on oil? Ever notice these bad guys we pick out to actually attack, or some country to occupy, sit on some huge oil deposits or other strategic minerals? Ever read about our support for Pinochet, how that came about, what was involved, who was involved, who got to profit from it?
Sorry, I refuse to stay dumbed down and not learn from history. When I was much younger I was just the biggest flag waving John Wayne worshipping rah rah rah yahoo out there. Unfortunately for them I decided that going beyond the headline snooze propoganda was more interesting. Whoops! It WAKES you up to do that, try it out, go ahead, better than caffeine! Wars based on lies, sticking in dictators then later on going "gee, he's a dictator, we got to do something!" is lame and moronic and to a lot of people around the world,outright deadly. I'm all for self defense,but I draw the line at purposeful offense based on lies with an economic and political profit motive involved, which this war clearly is. Remember, he was the same murdering goon back when we supported him, why did it change? Oh ya, he decided to switch his oil sales to Euros, THEN all of a sudden he became a "real" badguy so "we have to do something". They initially said he was somehow magically tied to the 9-11 attacks. What happened to that? Are we supposed to forget those and other gems of "quality intel" uttered by our so called "leaders"?
Sorry, homey don't play bait and switch no mo, or near real time revisionism, or just telling a lie over and over again until somehow we are supposed to accept it as the truth, it just won't work on me. Try someone else. Out-gooning the goons is not a solution, it's THE PROBLEM.
You were the one making the moral equivalence between the single death of an abortionist more than a decade ago, and the continuing deaths due to fanatical Muslims today as if the one excused the other.
What moral equivalence? "Both are horrible", I think I said. "Able to be characterised in the same way" does not equate "equivalence": "It was horrible the way your manager shafted you" versus "The child's death was a horrible thing."
Shrug. Read 1984. It's all there, with slight changes in terminology and technology. But not much. What comes pretty soon is imprisonment for those who dispute the propaganda.
What kind of propaganda system do they want? Are they talking about a news service like Voice of America used to be for Eastern Europe during the Cold War? Basically an unbiased news service that brought the same news found in USA newspapers to people who had no access to non-Communist news sources? That service is already provided by CNN and, to a certain extent, the newer-more open Arab news services like al-Jazira.
Or do they want a focused pro-American pro-West service to counter the incessant anti-American message coming from Iran?
Perhaps they are talking about a 'black' propaganda service, where stories that may or may not be true are introduced into the 'Arab street' for the sole purpose of provoking an extreme reaction. The Arabs and the Pakistanis will go into violent riot mode on just rumors now. For example, I doubt that anyone rioting in Libya, Syria, or Pakistan has actually seen any of these editorial cartoons that have whipped them into a frenzy. It is also doubtful that anyone in the west would have started massive street riots without actually seeing the provocative images themselves. It's unlikely that provocative images or unproven news rumors would cause riots in the west anyway.
Having a 'black' propaganda service that could introduce false rumors would allow the controllers of this service to have a 'light switch' to start violent street riots in the Islamic world at any time that is convenient for them.
Here's some great propoganda that will keep the muslims happy!
... Canada! Recall? those great people who had the balls to stand up to the USA and NOT attack Iraq because they knew Iraq was already fully contained, and that there was no believable evidence of any WMD's at all.
... then you are obliged right now to invade zimbabwe and end that dictatorship ... oh wait! no oil! no daddy to avenge! funny, freedom doesn't matter anymore now does it?
DONT BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON!
How about NOT giving yourselves a president with the intentions of invading a country simply to finish his daddy's job, that was willing to make up any lie in order to get the common american sheep to support the idea.
That's a start.
Need an example?
Think the war really was about freedom?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Dude, lay off the pipe. Where did you see in my post that I wanted to live forever? Heck, almost everyday I ask myself, why the hell was I born on the first place, sometimes I ask my mother the same thing. The only thing that keeps me going is the self-preservation instinct that is quite strong, since it was developed over the course of the past 3billion years.
No, I don't think your comment is a troll, I think it is off-topic actually.
You can't handle the truth.
You know, if you were less inclined to hide behind the anyonymous posting, perhaps people would take you more seriously.
I honestly don't know what it is with you guys. You complain bitterly about Slashdot being leftist but are too scared to post using an ID instead of being AC, or is it that you simply are too stupid to sign in?
I have yet to hear the Ayatollahs (let alone one of them) denounce the violence.
r ticleid=4475
i le=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February319.xm l§ion=theuae
r y_id=65780
o n.php
You just proved his point - they've been doing that from the very beginning. Maybe you should ask yourself if your news sources are trustworthy?
(While doing some quick googling to find sources in English on what I've already read in my native language, I'm a bit amazed as to how extremely US centric Google News is. I've never noticed this before - or it's part of the propaganda machine this thread is all about)
http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?a
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xf
http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&sto
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/13/news/carto
http://www.antara.co.id/en/seenws/?id=8873
it's in my head
...I like discussing issues with others that have different points of view, but in a civil manner, and I don't want a bunch of flamewars. Anything political though, inevitably starts with the "McChimpyBushHitler" paranoid raving that's so fashionable here. I'm beginning to think Taco and other editors support that point of view and basically think "screw the others".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
No, but Pat Robertson has called for the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader. He may not have blood directly on his hands, but he incites anger and hatred among the dumb and ignorant that are his flock. There's a special place in hell for him, don't kid yourself.
"All warfare is based on deception."
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
We don't hear too many moderate christian voices on our airwaves either. (or even christ-like voices for that matter...)
It seems like the ratio of NUTS vs SANE groups in the media does not differ much on either side of the world. With a few controlling the coverage, it makes one wonder if it a goal to create more conflict to distract us.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I never thought of it that way before, but I think you're right! ;)
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
How about changing their style: stop randomly detaining and torturing people, being honest instead of putting on a sanctimonious face while engaging in all sorts of underhanded activities, etc etc. In short - clean up their act altogether. Fat chance of that happening, though. Not until the American people decide to lynch the lot.
You can't propagandise a whole nation into thinking your way. Think back to the Soviet Union - they had a whole captive population (who at least initially trusted their government), almost isolated from the outside world, and the propaganda machine turned up to full power; plus they were good at it, but it still failed. So how big are the chances that this inept, bumbling lot will be able to change the minds of a nation of people who are mostly hostile, simply with propaganda?
There are two types of Propaganda, true and untrue. There has never been a war fought, hot war or cold war, that did not use propaganda. We are fighting a war goodness sakes! Propaganda is necessary. You fight fire with fire. If we do not counter their propaganda with ours, then only one side of the story ever gets out. Now, as far as bribing Iraqi journalists is concerned. Sometimes the ends justifies the means. Remember, all is fair in love and war. Why are some Americans so nieve to believe that we must be so fair when the radical Muslim world certainly is not.
REALLLY . . . I was a nerd long before the term was ever invented. Hey, Rochester! Warm up my computer please.
Wow. Only in Bizzaro World can you be accused of liberal bias for posting a quote from the Secretary of Defense and noting some relevant facts.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
instead of 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' read
'more effective 24-hour propaganda machine'.
I think Mr Bush is doing a fine job.
Let's see, we have two major terrorist attacks on the United States, where neither Bin Laden nor the anonymous anthrax mailer were ever caught. We have the completely failure of our intelligence and defense forces on 9/11 with no explanation and no plan to fix. We have a trillion -- a *trillion* dollars, do you have the slightest idea how much that is? -- pissed away in a war in a country most Americans couldn't identify on a map, for *nothing*.
We have double-digit increases in the military's main budget every year *on top of* this crazy war; and as a result we have cutbacks in all the services that might make life worthwhile if you weren't crazy rich.
We all watched over *days* while the government sat there and did nothing and we lost New Orleans. George Bush lost New Orleans. He didn't even *pretend to try* to save it. He didn't act concerned, he didn't do anything, and the city was destroyed.
But the worst part is all the dead. There are the thousands of American dead in the ruins of the World Trade Center, the thousands dead in the rubble of New Orleans, the thousands of young American men and women finding miserable and painful deaths in Iraq for nothing (not to mention the tens of thousands of young people returning multilated and crippled) -- and there are the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed by Americans, very many of whom were women, children, or simply people who were trying to mind their own business when an American bomb went off in their vicinity.
You think Mr. Bush is doing a fine job, do you?
On the contrary, even if Bush were impeached this very moment, based on the results of the first five years he'd still be by far the worst President the United States ever had.
Fairly organized groups of people who support violent acts - check.
Leading to death - check.
Almost winked at - check.
Look, I've spent time with people who did abortion clinic defense. Let me tell you, our own radical religious minority is just as dangerous, and they operate with a lot of people saying "well, I don't agree with their tactics, but they're defending children, so I won't stand in their way".
How come we don't see news coverage of the preachers that condemn abortion clinic bombings? Because that's not news. Nutjobs on a high-caliber Mission from God - now that's great television.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
We can't find out. From WP: Like all forms of U.S. Public Diplomacy (propaganda), its broadcast is forbidden in the U.S. itself under the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act.
Does this strike anyone else as, well, fucked up?
White House Debuts Iraq War Infomercial
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
An erratum to my own post: the decimal points were omitted after HTML processing, e.g., (1 -dot-in-center- 5) became (15) instead of (1.5).
The above quote should read:
Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.
The Iranian mullahs are not exceptions to the rule, read the posts! They have listed a few terrorist organizations and I'm sure more will come. Furthermore, Kuwait is a terrible example simply because that country owes its current sovereignty from Iraq to Western intervention. They simply don't have the same feelings that other people in the Middle East would about being humiliated by the US.
Dude,
What you say is 100% in agreement with my points
- I said women are allowed to work in Islam freely
- I said that tourist women are mistaken because they didn't respect the rules of the place
- And yet , Muslims are tolerant of said behaviour and they shouldn't threaten or harm them, merely tell them to come only if they respect the rules.
Why do you keep telling me that I don't understand Islam and that I make blanket statements?
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
"Insightful" is reserved for comments which actually provide a new or unique perspective. It should not be applied to patent and banal ramblings which bear not semblance to actual facts.
It was on Slashdot a couple years ago, can't find it though. It was a BBC article basically saying that US allies in Iraq (mainly UK troops) were afraid of Americans. Virtually all of friendly fire events are US firing on allies, it's almost never allies firing on US.
Now about collateral damage. WW2 showed that strategic bombing was a great way to achieve goals without risking too much casualties. Vietnam showed that infantry combat was indeed very costly in terms of human casualties and that the US public was not willing to accept heavy losses. The cold war officialized the absolute superiority of the US in technology and in air power.
I think all of this led the US to orient their military doctrine toward a massive use of air power before, during and after ground assault. This has proved very efficient at destroying ennemy military and infrastructure at a low price (in US lives). But this, imho, renders the US army pretty inefficient when it comes to occupying a country or winning "hearts and minds".
So you're right when you say : "It seems to me that US forces already tries to avoid collateral damage. It sounds more like you're calling for elimination of collateral damage - and that's a fantasy". The US tries to limit collateral damage within its doctrine of "bomb first, walk later". But that very doctrine generates more collateral damage than other doctrines with more boots on the ground and less laser-guided bombs.
Everybody tries to avoid collateral damage. No commander will decide to kill civilians if it brings no military advantage. At the end of the day, discussing collateral damage means answering the question "If razing that building risks killing X civilians but not razing it risks losing Y soldiers, should I do it?", in other words "How many foreign civilians is a US grunt worth?"
If your primary objective is to reduce your losses at a minimum, chances are that this implied number is very high.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
If you want to get down to it, Israel is at the foundation a bunch of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation European squatters occupying land belonging to others. That and a recent enormous infusion of Africans to boost the population.
According to my history teacher, jews have been living in that land since at least 1000 bc until the muslims declared them unislamic and kicked them out. The land that they occupied early the previous century was afaik bought and paid for; the rest wass assigned by the UN. If muslim countries do not agree they are free to leave the UN.
As to wiping them off the map. Maybe that's a good idea at this point. They've made their bed since 1947 and now complain about having to sleep in it. If the US stopped pumping public and private funding into that territory, they'd have to change their tune quickly and arrive at a peacable solution instead of constantly provocing violence.
While we're wiping nations off the earth, let's wipe the following nations off the map as well:
Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and the UAE. Especially the last one. How would you feel about that?
And while on the subject of "constantly provoking violence" hmmmm did you see the video of the israeli kids beheading a muslim? burning the muslim flag? calling out for global warfare against non-israeli's? burn embassies? dress their kids up with explosives? glorify the ak-47? could go on and on.
Now there's no reason why all those people can't live in peace and work towards eachother's benefit, but in order to do that the, state sanctioned racism, apartheid, genocide and terrorism on Israel's side and the racism and terrorism on the other side have to stop.
hmmm why do you think israel is an apartheid state. afaik there is even a jihadist in the knesset. israel makes it hard for non-citizens though. what a load of crap in one sentence without proof to support it.
damn, you must either be very ignorant or trying to obscure the stuation in favor of the jihadists.
I'm confused; we can either use propaganda, or we can wind up having to bomb more people. If you're opposed to the bombing, why are you also opposed to the propaganda? Don't you want peace?
Right now there are daily killings over some cartoons, because a huge number of people are hearing only one side of the story. You got the previous attempts to get both sides of the story to them squashed by complaining that it wasn't right for the US to pay journalists to run stories; now you're going to object to the entire concept of the US getting our side of the story out to these people?
You're condemning us to perpetual war, if you succeed.
Voice of America was established in 1942, and, as far as I know, has operated since then. It's not like their webpages go down half the time.
Of course, it may be not be obvious that it's a government mouthpiece; like the Department of War effectively becoming the Department of Defense after World War II, the United States Information Agency (the US propaganda division) was renamed to the Bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 1999.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
So the government is complaining to Google that they're selling "american values" short by working with the Chinese government, while simultaneously undermining the free and unbiased media of other countries? Hey congress; don't look to silicon valley for trouble, try looking up the street 16 blocks.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Once they actually start using the word "propaganda" they're going to receive one big PR buttfuck from Germany. It's just too easy to draw parallels to WW2 (expansionistic policy, the designation of a religion as an enemy, heavy use of propaganda) that the Germans, who have been trained to be naziphobic when the nation was rebuilt, will not loudly complain. Okay, Merkel seems to be determined to crawl up Bush's ass if necessary, but someone is bound to complai and the media will pick up the story because of it's outrageousness.
Sure, the USA has had witch hunts in the past (ooo, evil communism!) but back then everyone over here loved the USA. Today the USA has the image of a power-hungy corrupt banana republic governed by the oil companies. And I have a feeling that it's not going to improve soon.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Two points:
First, in China, white is a color of mourning. Wedding dresses are normally red, which is a "good" color in China. In the United States, this would have a connotation of prostitution.
Second, physical attractiveness has shifted. In medieval times, an attractive woman was pale white and definitely plumper than one is today; it showed that she was wealthy and did not need to leave the house to work in the sun. Today, in the US, a somewhat darker skin tone is generally considered attractive, and women pay to expose their skin to UV light in tanning devices to darken it; darker skin and a light build shows that they are healthy and exercising and are wealthy enough to do so instead of having to work in a cubicle all the time.
I think that lighter skin in Japan being more attractive is a result of the amount of Western media becoming popular in Japan, but I could easily be wrong.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Yes & Unfortonally it's called fox news
On the contrary, even if Bush were impeached this very moment, based on the results of the first five years he'd still be by far the worst President the United States ever had.
That is of course a matter of opinion and can as such not be falsified. However, James Buchanan, hurling the United States into civil war, ultimately killing some 560 000 of his own people, pretty much tops my list.
How about whatever it takes?!
There are only two options for Iraq now, success and freedom, or failure and chaos. Only idiots or monsters would suggest quitting now and dooming those people to a dismal fate.
"According to my history teacher, jews have been living in that land since at least 1000 bc until the muslims declared them unislamic and kicked them out."
So you're suggesting that anyone who can say where their ancestors lived 3000 years has every right to go and demand that they live there now and the present inhabitants should have no say in the matter ?
You see, just as you often see posts out here on slashdot, kuro5hin or other internet message boards by western internet users showing their rage and frustration with Islam.
You think *Slashdot* and *Kuro5hin* has rage and frusteration with Islam? These are fairly socially liberal forums compared to most of the US.
If you want to understand the neocon mindset (I read rightnation.us for a while, which had many people advocating the nuclear destruction of Mecca to "teach those Muslims a lesson"), you have to watch something like the Dirty Harry series. Dirty Harry pretty much *exactly* epitomizes the thought process I've seen from neocon postings (even to the extent of having the potentially gay peace-symbol wearing guy be the villan). The thought process goes something like this: Politicians are corrupt and they and judges and other high-ranking authority are crippled by "civil rights" and their lack of manliness. As a result, they won't do anything. The whole problem could be solved with our powerful military hardware -- after all, look how powerful it is -- if only someone would have the balls to apply it without being held back by stupid things like civil rights. What is necessary is for people with lousy jobs who don't have much influence to just stand up and show that they have a pair of balls and are willing to extreme force, and they'll protect their women and children. Then they'll be heroes, and the authorities that refuse to do anything will be demonstrated to be clearly wrong. Oh, and it won't matter that they're xenophobic.
Do not think that this is not an influential mindset. It ties very well into machisimo, dislike of the system, and lack of understanding of civil rights. For uneducated males, this is a significant driving force. "Respecting weaker cultures/countries" is seen as weak, womanish, and so forth.
If you go somewhere like West Virginia, you'll find that there are very few minorities present in the state. Very few people have experience with non-whites, there is *still* a social barrier to hiring blacks, and the Christian churches (mostly very conservative Baptist) have far more impact than the occasional news story about the plight of some half-imaginary Arabs -- besides, Fox News is the primary source of news. The main impact of minorities has been immigrants that take low-paying jobs that the local inhabitants could otherwise have. That results in a lot of hard feelings towards Mexicans, blacks, and so forth. Slashdot's irritation over Indian competition for jobs is very, very mild compared to what you'll see in a place like this.
If you want a somewhat less applicable example of a movie with this mindset (really more oriented towards people that are a result of growing up bombarded with anticommunist propaganda), I'd suggest watching Red Dawn.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
So here's the deal moron, the hallmark of mankind is his uncanny ability to exploit his fellow man. Karl Marx's vision completely ignores that fact, well it assumes that because you work in a car factory or on a farm that somehow you're morally superior to everybody else and wouldn't take advantage of someone else.
Marx's socialist world revolution obviously didn't happen. However, the man was also an influential philosopher, and showing that he was wrong about one thing (Einstein, Newton, and Aristotle had plenty of wrong ideas too, man) doesn't mean that nothing he says holds value.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
This whole Muslim issue can be easily resolved by a very simple event to occur by any oil consuming county that's feed up with these mean sprited loud mouths; Just go to a Hydrogen, Wind, and Solar Economy.
The word 'propaganda' says more about the author of the original article that it does the subject. The author is leftist and has a negative opinion of the current administration. This is obvious from his use of the word 'propaganda'. Not sure if the author hates America, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Many people have this negative connotation about propaganda, assuming it means lies you tell people in order to manipulate populations. That is one way propaganda has been, and is, used. But, generally speaking, propaganda just means communicating the government's message. That message could be false, or true. One critical truth is, the insurrectionists and terrorists have plenty of propagandists out there spreading half-truths or outright lies about the US and it's mission in Iraq and elsewhere.
If we are to have any hope of succeeding, we need to present our side of the story to the rest of the world, and particularly to Muslims. If anything, the US government has done too poor a job of propaganda, not too good of a job. I will say that doing things like bribing journalists makes you look bad, makes it looks like you are corrupt, and can't get anyone to carry your story unless they too, are corrupt. The current administration has ham-handedly gone about propaganda, but it must be recognized that propaganda is essential in any operation.
It's true, and Blair who is anxious to do SOMETHING important before he dies has followed along with everything.
He's even said straight that it is better to be at the head of europe even though we loose the right to self determination.
He's doctored his own intelligence reports and then pretended it was the fault of the intelligence dept.; as if he, a prime minister, didn't know how to evaluate intelligence. (And its not pick the first bit that supports what you knew instinctively and use that to persude everyone else)
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
When they find out it was all lies, will they stay our friends?
Because "news for nerds" is really "advertising dollars for Slashdot's parent company", and this article is a clickfest goldmine.
Unlike, say, any other news source?
The article is really about Rumsfeld being, gasp, honest about one of the fronts of the war.
Really. Do you have inside information into Islamic media to validate his claims?
Kneejerks will misinterpret this as Donald "Big Brother" Rumsfeld trying to control their minds.
Well, yes, we got a little bit burnt when we listened to him last time and he convinced everyone to, you know, invade, occupy, and set up a puppet government in Iraq without any legitimate justification? Why would be believe him now?
Oh, that's right. It was all the CIA.
The CIA was scapegoated for Iraq by the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz faction, which has a long history of pushing for more hawkish policies against the recommendations of the CIA. You have to know a bit of the background story.
Let's see: first it was the Soviets. The CIA said that they weren't going to nuke us. Wolfowitz's Team B decided that the CIA didn't know what the hell it was talking about, and that we needed to jack up our weapons production:
Team B, came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable by contemporary Western technology. When the CIA argued that the economic chaos in the Soviet Union was hindering their ability to produce an air defense system, Team B countered by claiming that the Soviet Union was trying to deceive the American public when in fact their air defense system worked perfectly.Some members were even considering promoting a "first strike policy" against the U.S.S.R.[13][14][15]. Rumsfeld took a good deal of power from the CIA during the Ford Administration.
During this period [Rumsfeld]...was instrumental in increasing the power of the military within the administration and at the expense of the CIA and Henry Kissinger. This was accomplished by promulgating the view that the Soviet Union was increasing defense spending and pursuing secret weapons programs, and that the proper response was a re-escalation of the arms race. Some say that this view was in direct contrast to CIA and generally accepted reports on the declining state of the Soviet economy, and the earlier success of Richard Nixon in establishing Detente (referring to a thawing of the Cold War) with the Soviet Union.
In Iraq, the CIA did their job well, handing up data that Iraq and al-Qaeda were *not* linked. Rumsfeld took issue with this.
"[OSP] was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true--that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States. [...] 'The agency [CIA] was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism,' the Pentagon adviser told me. 'That's what drove them. If you've ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at C.I.A. that color the way it sees data.' The goal of Special Plans, he said, was 'to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can't see.'"
After the fact that Iraq didn't actually have any weapons of mass destruction, and the justification-of-the-day-for-invading-Iraq started shifting around, the PR strategy began to blame "bad intelligence" for the invasion -- which was effectively taken by the public as being the CIA's fault. A Congressional investigation into the CIA was started, the Bush Administration put pres
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
There are two branches of judaism, Sephardic and Ashkenazi. Sephardic jews are from the ME, have lived all over the region including the current borders of Israel for millenia. They're locals and always have been. Ashkenazi do mostly trace back to Europe if you go back two hundred years but go back to the ME if you trace them back a millenia or two.
The sephardim were expelled and expropriated all over the ME, after the creation of Israel decimating historic populations that date back long before the birth of Islam. Right now, they're generally in Israel and generally voting Likud, the hardline party. The Ashkenazim which you call interlopers still dominate Labor, the most accommodationist party.
President Ahmadinejad believes that the Shia predicted end times are coming soon within his lifetime. That means that there must be a world-wide genocide of the jews according to his particular branch of the theolgy. Doesn't it make you feel dirty making common cause with that?
By that standard no border line in the ME is safe from being redrawn. None of them are legitimate by any standard other than we (the West generally) were on top and we drew the line there.
The Ottoman empire died. It fought one last losing war and instead of having the victors battle over the spoils the League of Nations decided to try to do something better with the Mandate system. Lebanon was supposed to be a refuge for christians, Israel a refuge for jews. Jordan was for the muslims as were the 40 odd countries carved out of the old Ottoman territories.
So should we have established christian colonies all over the ME as would have been the norm under the prior rules?
Yes, that was my point. You can't use 3000 year old claims to land to justify creating modern countries.
So you're suggesting that anyone who can say where their ancestors lived 3000 years has every right to go and demand that they live there now and the present inhabitants should have no say in the matter ?
*cough* american natives
*cough* eskimos
*cough* south african natives
well it must sound ridiculous, I guess it makes more sense to just nuke people off the planet.
Propaganda is cheaper than bombs, and better than killing people. Bribes, tricks and lies don't seem as noble as a soldier's duty, but when you put it in perspective that people don't (usually) have to die for propaganda to work it makes a lot of sense.
The US propaganda engine is not anywhere near WWII levels, there can be a great deal more than there is currently.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The justification for Israel is that England was in charge and they decided to draw the lines that way. The jewish zionists convinced England to do it with a number of lines of argument including that they had a multi-thousand year attachment to the place but the reason the lines were drawn as they were in 1947 was strictly colonial whim. Israel's 1948 and subsequent borders were established conventionally, by force of arms and treaty brokered territory concessions.
The millenia of occupation and connection is a very nice national myth but it wasn't the reason the lines were drawn that way. Jewish majority neighborhoods got included in Israel. The rest was supposed to be arab Palestine. Then there was a war...
Shock and awe, what a joke.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Wow.....the number of posts this topic has generated is astounding....the more so as only a small percentage actually address the article at hand. I've got a few pennies here, so let me throw in a few thoughts.
First, Rumsfeld (as much as I hate to say it) does have a point, although I doubt he looks at it the same way. The greatest strength of the terrorists and insurgents is their complete lack of a rigid bureauracy. They can adapt rapidly to fickle public awareness and a lazy, sensationalist media. Our government, on the otherhand, is incapable of this because of the very procedures we have created in the name of "efficiency". A brief example (I beg pardon for this digression) is when I went through some government training (sorry, can't say what type as I might get in trouble for criticizing the gov't) and found glaring errors and omissions in the information they were giving to students (some of it outdated over 30 years ago). I went through the bureaucratic two-step and filled out all the requisite forms to remedy this until I was told to stop submitting critiques for "questioning the course's integrity". I was told that, while my critiques (complete with citations and references) may be valid, it would take years to get even simple changes approved, evaluated, tested, re-evaluated, re-approved, and eventually implemented -- too much of an effort to be worth fighting for. I realize I have been vague here, but the changes I was fighting for were changes to a medical curriculum that was teaching information that could potentially harm patients if not remedied. To make a long story short, any "grass-roots", decentralized, or cellular movement is FAR more flexible than our rigid, over-regulated system. So Rummy is right, we do need to be able to adapt more quickly to media-driven public emotion, but, being who and what he is, will attempt to do this with further rules, regulations, and guidelines that serve exactly the opposite end.
Now, on the much debated Left/Right wing Fox/Aljazeera Good/evil secular/religious debates.... As far as politics go....no independent thinker worth his or her salt judges any individual politician solely by party association. Many independent (rightly) supported Clinton's impeachment for lying (I don't care what about...he tried to cover up) and voted (initially) for Bush because a focused effort against Afghanistan seemed warranted after 9-11. (Let's face it, focusing on a given issue is not the Dems' strong point.) It didn't take long, however, for the Bush administration overstepped its bounds and was vociferously opposed by these same people. Slashdot is rife with people pointing fingers and whining about how unfair bias is in one venue or another, but any bias reflected here is that of the readers, not some business conglomerate. No administration releases exclusive slashdot interviews or uses this site as a method to release their latest "victory" speech. Both Fox, and AlJazeera have political and economic interests that trump any obligation to print the views of all comers. Yes, Fox kisses Republican @$$, but there are plenty of other networks that lean the other way. AlJazeera is a business and has been pressured, bribed, coerced, and encouraged to bias stories from whatever group happens to be in power. To expect otherwise of a major news organization is irrational and overly idealistic. Actions DO speak louder than words, as some other posters have noted in calls for US foreign policy change, but this axiom also applies to individuals. There is a difference between dedicated spirituality and the abuse of religious symbolism to advance a political agenda. To believers of Islam the world over: the beauty of your religion and it's message of "peace" is being destroyed by these extremists. They are not religious, they are abusers of the message of the prophet and must be fought at all costs. To the righteous Christian-American "moral" majority....the terrorist attacks of 9-11 are NOT an excuse for you to start the next crusade. The rhetor
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Why don't you go do that?
You think there's stories to be told out there besides what we hear (mostly from inside the green zone), why don't you go over there and report them?
Part of the problem is it is unsafe for our reporters to leave this area (as ABC's Bob Woodruff so well illustrated) and Americans don't seem to want to listen to any reporters from other countries. It's kind of ironic on that 2nd part, because back before the election the Bush administration was saying everything was hunky-dory, that the insurgence was just a bunch of "dead-enders", most reporters couldn't safely leave the Green Zone to report the real story without being embedded, in which case the military could not only lead them where they wanted, but also censored their reports. One major new reporting agency was sending reporters outside the Green Zone and they were saying that the citizens were not greeting us as heroes and the insurgents were making major inroads. That agency was Al-Jazeera. In response, the Bush administration demonized them, closed down their offices until after the (US) Presidential election and eventually ended up bombing their location in Baghdad (and claiming it was a mistake).
Meanwhile, all the American news sources were just reporting wine and roses. But now that the American news sources finally did their jobs and actually report what is going on instead of what the Bush administration told them is going on, you say the "real" story would get out better if we had other news sources that could get out into the countryside.
I'd love to think that manipulating the media came back to hurt the Bush administration. I'd love to think that the media kowtowing to the Bush administration and showing an inaccurate picture of the situation came back to hurt the media too. But honestly, I just don't see it. The Bush administration is merely reaping what they sowed, and yes, things are very bad over there. Yes, things are least bad in places that we meddled the least in.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Your history teacher would be wrong. Romans kicked the jews out not the arabs/muslims. Besides, how were the arabs of early twenteith century responsible for acts by some group of people more than thousand years ago?
I believe there have been enough bloods spilled on both sides. Palestinies need to understand that Israel is here to stay and work within that framework. Israelies need also see that there will be no peace without establishing a realistic Palestine (that Gaza strip thing is a joke).
How can someone that claims to support out troops, the ones who raid home in the dead of night and abuse women, but not the war... speak negatively about a propaganda machine while siting sources like Aljazeera? WTF? How completly backwards can your logic be? I think if there is an ounce of reasoning in their you did yourself and all liberals an injustice by not supporting your point with credible facts.
Don't worry about it. I am sure these riots over free speech have done more harm to Islam in the eyes of Democrats than anything Bush has done.
Especially interesting is to compare the reputational damage of the killings/riots compared to the damage of the original cartoon.
There are worse things than death. Living under slavery, or under a dictator, is worse than death. If we fail to defend and advance the ideals of liberty and justice, our children will know that all too well.
Our sons and daughters who have volunteered to defend and advance the cause of liberty know that it puts them in mortal peril to do so. Rather than acknowledge the awesome risk they are taking and applaud them for it, you choose to label one phase of the struggle as unjust.
If you had ever been in the military you'd know that with a divided mind, a soldier will fail. Without the belief in the rightness of his cause, he cannot endure the hardship of war. When soldiers are weak, they die in greater numbers and fail to accomplish their mission.
On the other hand, when our enemies hear about a U.S. divided on the war, they are emboldened. Their cause is winnable, they think. That causes them to go on strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up fruitstands, rather than undertaking a peaceful path. The blood of our soldiers and Marines is on the hands of those who for cynical political expediency oppose their mission.
Huh? Talk about losing sight of your own ideals. Tolerance, as long as everyone agrees.
Joe Biden? Come on. The man has only secondhand acquaintance with the truth. He's a pompous, arrogant liar. I know you can find someone better than him to quote.The Presidency is a position much more easily critiqued than occupied, and Mr. Biden is still bitter about his own failed aspirations.
Find another source. Surely there's a student newspaper, a DNC press release, or a deposed dictator out there who would offer evidence supporting your cause.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
And that's where a good portion of twenty-somethings get practially all their international news from. Sad, but true. Though, in their defense, The Daily Show tends to have more national and international facts than my local mid-market 5 o'clock news. By a long shot. And, it turns out that even though John Stewart clearly leans left, he's not above pointing out the weaknesses of the left. He just gets a little more satisfaction when he pokes fun at the right.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I for one probably am not alone when I say I neither trust nor believe anything the Emperor or his minions say. Hamas winning is a prime example of US foreign policy at it's worst. All of the leftist governments in South America taking over is another fine example. How does a propaganda machine supposed to work if they cannot control all media outlets. Yes, the US government controls the US and Iraqi media, but the Europeans know the US is full of it and report accordingly. Everything touched by the government either dies or runs away. I would run if I had a place to run to.
Wikipedia describes propoganda as a type of message designed to influence the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.
In my view, whether that is necessarily a good thing or not depends on the overall intention. For political reasons it is not a good thing because opinions do not have to be based on facts, they are, after all, just opinions. Conversely, look at what data is used by the average American populace when deciding on a political candidate -- very little, most American's vote based on their personal feelings towards a particular candidate and not on the issues, raw data or even facts.
So, is it effective? Yes. Is that good? Unfortunately, no.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
> Then it seems to me that the rest of the moderate Muslims should be able to see that it is in their best interest to get together and do something about the troublemakers
I keep seeing this sentiment stated, yet no one making it replies to the obvious response "Why don't Christians see that it's in their best interests to do something about their troublemakers" -- the KKK being the obvious choice.
Most just ignore the order to kill infidels much in the same way as most christians ignore the rule that slave trade is okay.
1 119503544502&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scho lar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE
My credentials: Muslim with extensive knowledge of the West and Middle East.
Here is a DIRECT response, by Muslim SCHOLARS/CLERICS, to the allegation that Islam instructs to kill non-Muslims. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=
I think it is the responsibility of Western media to amplify messages like these instead of the action-movie-like scenes of bearded guys burning flags!!It is also the responsibility of Muslims to reach out to Westerners to educate them. I find that islamonline.net is one of the best examples that speak to a Western culture. Of coures, much more can be done, on both sides. Similarly, for you Americans, when English aljazeera comes to American homes, just CONSIDER it as another source for news. It is my opinion that it's unbiased (routinely aggravates BOTH political sides) BUT it will focus on matters that are important to Muslims and Arabs.
RELIGION DOES NOT KILL! RELIGION DOES NOT KILL! RELIGION DOES NOT KILL!
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
The FBI had an agent inside the cell that pulled the first 93 WTC attacks, that came out in the trial, yet it still occurred. And there's just a ton of evidence of government involvement and prior knowledge about the 2001 attacks. I am not even going to bother with any links, anyone can find them and I know they have been posted here over and over again.. If you can't smell a rat I can't help you any longer. This whole business is a reichstagg event, and it was outlined exactly what they were going to do in the PNAC documents by those total fascist pigs.
You can dumb down and buffalo some of the people with constant overlapping lies of omission and outright lies, but not everyone. You neo-conmen are just a pack of lying murdering thugs. Kill foreigners, kill your own if it suits your blood profits schemes. You and your kind have been constantly meddling and interferring with those people for *generations* now, and you WONDER why they are upset?? We listened to you way back with the "gulf of tonkin" attacks and it took three decades for the truth to come quietly out. How many did you kill there? This time you have to deal with the net and people being able to go do some research and find out the things you don't want them to know. No one disputed saddam was a goon, I certainly didn't, he should have been popped decades ago, along with his demon sons, but like others of the low IQ ilk, you once again attempt to change the focus with debate 101 tactics. Sorry, that don't fly.
Being against yet again another corporate conman war is not the same as support for some random ass dictator. You get it yet?
I am against rewarding the idiots who helped stick saddam in in the first place, and they are THE SAME IDIOTS WE GOT NOW. It is not prudent to give political power to the same criminals who set Saddam up and supported him for years. I REFUSE to stop at some point in history YOU PICK when looking at events. You do not reward a burglar by making him a security guard, the same should be true with these bogus "leaders" we have now, yet it happened, so I speak out about it.
Capeche?
Take your conman fascist propoganda and shove it. Go preach to the dittoheads, they love that crap because they get to "let's roll" without any inconvenient pesky data getting in the way. You are wasting your time on anyone who has even remotely researched this subject, stick to the mouth breathers. You pick bad trying to push that crap on slashdot, because it is trivially easy to see through the bs now.
The reasons for violence for invading Iraq are not even similar to the reasons for those resisting or getting revenge against the invadors of Iraq.
Amazing how hard it is for so many americans...
So the violence justified by the french resistance in WW2 also justifies germany invading france by use of violence? (well thats not similar enough; this iraq thing makes vietnam look smart.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You're telling us you've never heard of George Clinton and the P.Funk?
You need to get out more!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Here's something I don't understand, and I hope that you can explain it to me. If the purpose of the ban on depictions of Mohammed is to prevent idolatry (which is a form of worship), then why would people be upset at an irreverent and teasing depiction? The cartoons are hardly intended to promote the worship of Mohammed, so why is this blasphemy?
It seems to us that the real offense is in irreverence and not in reverence.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Are you perhaps making the same mistake this time?
Are you perhaps trying to put words into my mouth? I was actually hopeful for the invasion to stop the genocide of the Iraqis. But you don't know me as a person and continue to assume...
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Because I would like to see it for myself. But the State Department warns Americans against going in the strongest terms possible. Because it's not safe anywhere but in the Green Zone, and the airport isn't in the Green Zone.
But either way, I would have done it because I wanted to do it, not because I wanted to be some kind of authority on an internet chat board. I don't really care if the next person doesn't feel the same way I do over Iraq. I had to give that up before the war even started because I saw this stuff coming a mile away. It really isn't difficult to figure out that if you occupy someone's country they're not going to be happy about it, no matter how many times you say you're doing it for their own good.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The CIA hired Saddam to assassinate the previous leader of Iraq, which he failed to do and had to hide out in Egypt while a professional assassin did the job, at which point Saddam was installed by the US as a puppet leader, who they consistantly supported for years before he "went rogue".
retaliating against Saddam Hussein
Retaliating for what, exactly? There are various options but I suspect you don't know what any of the real ones are.
But oops, you later DID lie and say that they were all gone. Despite overwhelming proof and evidence.
Which exists only in your mind. None have ever been found.
The terrorists are learning that if they commit atrocities and aggression, they might end up in one of those prisons.
Unfortunately innocent people, including children, are also learning that if they are the victims of a village argument over sheep or even just wearing the wrong colour trousers when the US sweep through that they can end up in the same prisons, or shipped off in a CIA jet to be tortured in Eastern Europe somewhere.
Rice and Rumsfeld are are an excellent example of the high moral ground.
Rumsfeld is a mythomaniac and Rice is probably the most unpleasant, nasty, hypocritical woman in the world; she's certainly the most dangerous.
Your post consists entirely of unsupported assertions which fly in the face of literally years of contrary evidence. As with so many people who simply don't understand what is going on in America, you take the approach that opponents of the US's actions are supporters of terrorists. We are not (well, I'm not), to many people there simply is no difference between the terrorists and the US. Both are worthy of condemnation. Both kill indiscriminately in pursuit of political goals, and most importantly, both use terror to make people do what they want them to. The terrorists are not good people; Saddam was not a good person, he was a shit and should have been hung at the end of the war. But the people who put him there and supported him while he killed his people are no better. Worse in some ways because they had the power to stop him and choose not to do so because they were happy with Saddam's performance against Iran. They decided that thousands of innocent lives were worth a pathetic political gain in a part of the world they had no business being in in the first place.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Very few in Mexico will regard other people "inferior" in the sense you are implying.
But it is a matter of fact on Mexican life that people of European descent, for reasons quite obvious, have held economical power.
In Mexico it is always quite a good bet to assume that the more European you look (i.e. "White") the wealthier you are.
But not superior.
When the French sent a poor Austrian chap to attempt to become emperor, he was eventually captured and executed, the pardon, in the hands of a dark skinned Zapotecan Indian, was denied.
That is a lesson that no Mexican, of any given race, has forgotten.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... I think I know more about how your religion is used as a tool of opression.
Lets not delve too deeply in the fact that men can have 4 wives, but not the other way around (hearing Muslims trying to justify this is an exquisite exercise of double speak and self delussion).
Lets forget that Islamic costume makes it OK for very old men to marry girls so young that in many ocassions have just left infancy (but never the other way around, thankfully).
But it is a wwll known documented fact that Islam imposes on women a life of domesticity and servitude to their men (be this the father, the husband or the brothers).
In the most extreme Islamic countries (like Saudi Arabia), a WOman is not her own person. They very often can't vote and almost never are electable for an elected body (when they exist).
Inheritance law in Muslim societies is also less favourable towards women, as is divorce law.
There are a few examples of Islamic countries that are more enlightened, like Malaysia and to a degree some parts of Indonesia. But the element that would like to see the complete sujugation of women to men is always a trend all too easy to find on Islamic countries and societies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.
The German master of propoganda Goebbels would disagree with you. According to him the truth is the last thing that a proper propogandist needs:
When the State controls the media, it only speaks what is convenient to itself which is not necessarily the truth. Propoganda is the ultimate enemy of democracy because it changes the will of the people to match that of its elites without regard for what is and isn't fact, which leads straight to my other favorite Goebbels quote:
Sound familiar -- almost like what got us into this mess that he want the propoganda for in the first place? Never forget why democracy failed in Germany and be wary of leaders that openly use propoganda to further "our" ends.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Jews are just a scapegoat, much like the blacks, muslims, etc. Its a distraction.
... those "evil" chinese are what keeps us spending like crazy, by buying out our obscene levels of debt... eventually, once all of our industries are wiped out, and all our people are serving burgers, or living in boxes, perhaps then they'll smile and say "so sorry, our banker called, they can't extend you more credit... very sorry *click*" What do you think we'll do then? The Chinese already manufacture the targetting systems for our missiles, and most of the parts in our mighty "nukular" subs and aircraft (+ ac carriers, etc) They even make the plastic parts for the M16, which are then bought by Mattel and sold to the military. Funny how our so called "enemy" is supplying us... charging us money, and then using that same money to buy our "debt", our debt increases, we receive cheap shit parts, and the Chinese lose nothing. They do, however control our currency, and can, at any time if they deem so, cut off any supply we want. As might be obvious as reported by all TV news, China HAS recently stated that they WILL use their nuclear arsenal if we interfere between them and Taiwan. Keep in mind that once Taiwan goes, China has just situated themselves as the ONLY supplier of electronics to the west. Other than Tyan, there are NO US motherboard manufacturers. And only a SCANT few chip factories remain in the west (AMD in Dresden, etc, thanks to the germans actually PROTECTING their industries when push came to shove).
Can you be as stupid as to believe that "its the jews" ??
Ye gods. Naivete amazes me still...
Listen here, Rothschild is an extremely influential group, but if you think its "because they're jews" you're more gullible than I had expected. At one point they might've been jews, but as with most people who get to insane levels of power, they BECOME god in their minds. Every dictator who thinks he's invincible has the exact same complex, the only difference is most dictators rely on military power... which can be usurped or outright destroyed. Controlling currency is a different story, and YES, originally the rothschild family was a bunch of jews... if you think any of them care for judaism other than to say "ahah they're prosecuting us for our religion", you are gravely mistaken.
*** NOTE: You should watch the foreign exchange markets. If you had, you would've noticed that THE ONLY THING THAT HAS PROPPED UP THE DOLLAR, EVEN WHEN THE EURO WAS OVERBOUGHT, was the CHINESE AND JAPANESE BANKS BUYING UNITED STATES DEBT!!! Yes... THEY
Back to the religion idea, just like christians in the white house use that religion to further their own ends, and just like Usama Bin Ladin uses his religion to further his ends. He's far too cunning to actually BELIEVE... no, he's merely using it to further his ends. As is Bush, and Cheney, and co, etc.
Only the plebeians (otherwise known as "the proles" or "the proletariat") actually still believe in "the jews are evil" or "the christians are evil". THEY ARE ALL EVIL... for they are religions used to produce mass histeria and mass hatred of "them" with "them" being anyone that is not "us" with "us" being the religion of the group at hand. They are evil by mob mentallity alone. Take an intelligent "believer" (not an average joe, most are plain stupid, without enough reasoning ability except to rationalize that the way their life sucks is the way its always been and always will be, hence a must to be accepted as is). If someone disagrees they are "a kook" or "a lunatic" or a "conspiracy theorist". Funny how when the communists took over in eastern europe and fucked everyone over, "conspiracy theory" was no longer a theory... it is sad that it takes such a terrible loss like that to make the naysayers become "prophets" or "farseers" instead of "kooks" and "lunatics". Most of you lived sheltered lives, and spent your time shooting blips on a screen. Try waking up and seeing the world a bit without your TV and see what yo
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
[i]Well, I guess if I'm going to be accused of firebombing I guess I really can accuse the entire Muslim community of 9/11. What's the old saying? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?[i]
Difference being, the actions of the U.S. is being done by a government elected by the people. As a citizen, I do feel somewhat responsible for the wrongs done by our government. They get their powr through us. Osama Bin Laden is a criminal supported by religious fundamentalists. He wasn't voted in to any form of office by the muslim world. Terrorists can operate with less then 1% of the population supporting them.
Even if they can't do something fancy, it doesn't take a lot of resouces to blow yourself up.
Hmmm... Pie...
Okay; file this guy under "just plain nuts".
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yeah, yeah. Arabs don't like jews. News at eleven. Israel has actually announced that they'll bomb Iran if they start building basically anything that they don't like the look of. If Cuba said that about America you'd be singing a different song, wouldn'd you, my little warmonger?
Unless you think it is OK for a regime to have nuclear weapons when they have announced their intent to exterminate an entire nation of millions of people.
Well, I suppose America does its killings without the announcements. Does that make it better? I'm not sure.
The US has shown no signs of wanting to rule the world. It has shown every sign of wanting to help solve global problems,
Funny how the problems it wants to solve are always the ones that make money, isn't it? Helicopters flying in to help villagers stuck in the mud? Invoice will be in the post, sir, please pay promptly. World War One, nice little earner; only country to make a profit on it from the sales of arms to its "allies". World War Two against the most overtly evil threat in modern history. Sorry not interested; but we'll sell you some equipment. In the end, made a profit, the only country to do so in both world wars. People being oppressed in Zimbabwe? Sorry, no oil, not interested. People being oppressed in Nigeria, okay... Oh, they're being oppressed by the oil industry. No, sorry can't help you there either. Call us if the locals sieze the oil rigs though and we'll sell you some helicopter gunships.
As before, the US ends up acting in concert and cooperation with a large number of allies.
As before the allies have been told to get on side or find out what the wrath of the US will mean in trade terms.
If that were true, we would not keep all our treaties as we have been doing for decades.
No you haven't.
The US actions in this regard are quite legal
No they aren't. International law is another thing America ignores at its whim.
Do you know who Rice is? Probably not. She never rants. She never even raises her voice. She just tells it like it is.
Yes, she is the ex-director of Chevron oil who has no qualifications for her job but has got there with the help of Dick Chaney, another director of Chevron oil who pulled some strings for his friend. She's the one who preaches about democracy. I suppose someone might have told her what that is, but she's shown no interest in being involved in the process herself. The Iranian election was very poor and far from fair. BUT IT WAS MORE OF AN ELECTION THAN RICE EVER FACED TO BECOME ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
The problem of Iranian nuclear aggression is entirely created by the Iranian regime.
What nucelar aggression?! They haven't even got any nukes! They've never said they wanted them, they've never threatened to attack anyone with them if they had them. Rice has made this ALL up! How can you be so stupid? How can a country 10 years away from the capacity to nuke Israel be accused of nuclear aggression? It doesn't make any sense.
The US's actions in Iran has of course made it almost impossible now for the moderates who were trying to move the PM out of office to act. To do so now would be to look as if they were working for a foreign power. Which is exactly what Rice wants. Iran backing down now would screw up any chance of starting a war with them, and that would be a disaster for the rabble of cutpurses that currently make up the American cabinet.
I do have some faith that they can be kicked out before even more people die for nothing; I think American people are pretty decent when they know the facts but the propaganda machine keeps them in the dark. Most don't even seem to know how many Americans have dies in Iraq, they certainly have no idea how many Iraqis because the government refuses to count them. But they can tell us how much oil revenue has been lost due to terrorist attacks in installations. That's because they care about the oil. They don't give a shit about the Iraqis.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Almost winked at - check.
Being on the FBI top ten list is "almost being winked at"? I think you need to go check your facts. There was probably more manhours spent on the hunt of Eric Rudolph than the vast majority of crimes! Let's not kid ourselves about this. And certainly no government entity housed him either.
Let me tell you, our own radical religious minority is just as dangerous, and they operate with a lot of people saying "well, I don't agree with their tactics, but they're defending children, so I won't stand in their way".
Just as dangerous as people who killed 3000 in a single attack? Again, check your facts. Let's see the danger you speak of. How many people have died at abortion clinics in the US since 1973? I defy you to prove me wrong.
Of course, you'll throw in the spin that I'm defending them but the truth is far from it. But you'll doubtlessly try to put a spin on it instead of coming up with some numbers to defend your position. Insightful? Hardly.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Because Hamas doesn't kill Americans, only Jews.
If we went to war anytime somebody killed a Jew, we'd, no wait...
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Well, that and they'd like to categorize the people who criticize them as "terrorists."
Once the public accepts that "propaganda is necessary" and "this is a war of ideas," they'll see that as a mandate to crack down on the "enemy ideas."
Under this government's preferred reading of current law, you are technically providing support to terrorists by criticizing American leaders.
The US government is composed of adults who can discern between people trying to kill Americans with explosives, poison, bullets, knives, or radioactive materials versus those who don't like its policy and express their disagreement verbally or in writing. One is going to get you in big trouble, maybe even killed, and the other might get a laugh behind closed doors. Sadly, you don't seem to be able to figure it out. Here is a hint: Since the media currently feels completely free and comfortable exposing ongoing CIA and NSA operations against the same terrorists who are trying to kill Americans by the millions, what makes you fantasize that the government will be rounding up people who simply criticize it? What a wonderful example of nonsense.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He's doctored his own intelligence reports
:)
Don't forget, he handed them right to Neocons in the US who waved them around and used them as justification for going to war in Iraq. Or, at least that's what they tell us over here.
I don't know which one, Bush or Blair, is the head idiot, but they are two of the biggest national socialist dipshits to have hit the West since, well, you know who
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The US government is composed of adults who can discern between people trying to kill Americans
Hardly. If you're not with them, you're with the terrorists.
And those terrorists consist of 1) an isolated, sanctioned, former western-puppet dictator throwing a few petrodollars at Palestinians and threatening to move to the Euro, 2) a Islamist republic standing in the way of Israeli domination of the Middle East, developing nuclear power in violation of a treaty signed by a previous western-puppet dictator, moving it's petrodollars to the Euro, and helping other OPEC countries do the same, 3) an isolated, sanctioned, communist-puppet dictator with poofy hair that already has nuclear weapons, and is threatening to use them unless it gets more US food and oil for its million-man army and failing socialist economy, 4) a small band of religious fundamentalists "oppressing" women in the poorest country on earth, preventing the opium harvest, and standing in the way of a Unocal pipeline from the Caspian, and, lest we forget, 5) a former CIA operative who flew planes into the two of the tallest buildings in the US, killing thousands of Americans.
This is the clear-headed leadership you envision? Assuming so, which "terrorist" do you suppose a "discerning adult" would attack first?
Nice article, btw. It clearly shows not that they want to, but that they feel justified in killing or injuring millions of us because we have killed or injured millions of them. Again, evil "terrorists" who fight back when attacked. *shock*
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
As if you needed any proof that Fox News plays favorites with the right, maybe you should read the 923 items at the link detailing lies, misinformation, and right-wing bias brought to you by the Fox News Channel.
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/fox
When even Bill O'Reilly thinks the network slants to the right, maybe you should too.
When you are more likely to be misinformed as a Fox News viewer than as a consumer of any other channel on television, maybe you should change the channel.
http://www.alternet.org/story/16892/
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
True, but I also can't name one that spent so much of their time preaching about democracy while also telling elected governments to not carry out their election promises. The hypocracy is the issue here, and she has it in spades.
They've announced a nuclear bomb building program
Link please.
and the intent to use it in their prime foreign policy goal of exterminating another nation.
Link please. I mean to the nuclear bit; it's hardly a secret that the jews and muslims have been at eachother's throats for 800 years or so. Currently the body count is about 10:1 Palistinians to Israelis. Israel has nukes and had not even signed the NPT, nor will it ever as it holds that it is its god-given right to use those weapons if it wants to.
It is obvious that the intent is to avoid war, and to get Iran to back down from its belligerance.
In fact the US has consistantly demanded the impossible from Iran knowing that by so doing they will be backed into a corner and probably start to fight back, which will give the needed excuse to attack them. As I said before, Iran is entitled to aid with the nuclear programme; it is America who is leading the effort to prevent that treaty obligation being met, and as a result making it impossible for the Iranian government to rein-in their PM. The US's actions could not be better designed to increase support for extremists in Iran for the simple reason that it is designed to increase support for extremists in Iran.
When Russia stepped in and said it would enrich the uranium, thus allowing Iran to have nuclear power without developing technology which could be used to make bombs, the US pushed the issue to the Security Council. The only reason to do that was to harden the Iranian position and probably scupper the deal, which it looks like it has. America does not want a peaceful Iran and is working hard to prevent it.
Why is such a census necessary? Iraq Body Count has stepped up to do the job.
Counting the number of casulties is part of the army's job as it is a fundimental part of assessing the cost and efficency of a military campaign in the modern age. Iraq Body Count is a cash-strapped organisation who can only make estimates within wide margins due to the many layers of security between them and where the action is. It should be no more than an independant check on the military figures, instead it's all there is.
No, you are the one who doesn't give a shit about them. You wanted them to stay under Saddam's rule.
No, I wanted Saddam removed during the first Gulf War. In fact, I didn't want Saddam in charge at all. But America did, and kept him there for decades while he tortured and slaughtered anyone he wanted. I'm glad to see him gone, and I wish they'd pack in this stupid trial and hang the bastard, since the whole world know's he's guilty. But by having no plan for what happened after the war apart from which companies would get which oil fields, the current mess and the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths were pretty well assured. But no one in the White House cares about that.
I side with the Iraqi people.
No you don't. You side with fools and liars who tell you transparent crap about Iraq. You are an idiot and a gift to dictators everywhere. You know nothing about your own country and still less about the world in general. You confuse words with actions and fiction with fact. You have no critcal ability and a blind faith in people who have absolutely no interest in you or your well-being. If you were five years old and still believed Santa that would be fine, but for an adult you are bordering on the mentally retarded.
Iraq could have been made better, it may yet be better one day. With Saddam gone that is at least a possibility. But another much bigger possibility now is that the current fighting between factions will allow the establis
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yes, yes. Sorry and all that. "Muslims don't like jews". There, happy? It's still a sweeping generalisation anyway. I am well aware of the distinction but I think that one small mistake, given that you've written pages without getting anything right, is hardly a hanging offense.
Concerning Iran's nuclear weapons program which you deny exists, here is some further documentation:
Gosh, yes. That is damning isn't it. It's not like the same material exists in every major library and university in the world or anything, is it? In fact, I have seen better material, since those documents mentioned in your link did not even have dimensions marked which are critical to making a bomb. Have you a link from someone in power in Iran who "announced" the intent to make a bomb? You claimed there was such an announcement; where is it?
I think you operate from a "hate the United States first" M.O. and let everything flow from that, including the idea that the U.S. is the ultimate arch-villain in everything, regardless of the facts.
I think you operate from a "my country right or wrong" MO and let everything flow from that, including the idea that the government would never lie and never become corrupt, regardless of the facts.
In fact, even though I had a friend killed by American-backed terrorists back in the 80's, I am aware that of the 300 million or so people who live there, very few are really bad people. But with very few exceptions, the American election system has been a sham for most of the country's history and the actual rulers have all been taken from the aristocracy (some of whom were great leaders like FDR). When your leadership is drawn from a small clique like that there is always the danger that they will become disconnected from the people - the worst case scenario being a monarchy - and that's what's happened now. Rumsfeld is a classic example of this. He has failed so often and so spectacularly that in any sort of meritocracy he might actually be in jail. Because he is operating in a self-supporting circle of people who have no responsibility except to each other, he has stayed in or near power for half his adult life. This is not a disease of America as a whole but of the tiny fraction of people who run it for their own advantage.
That is just a statement of your religious faith. You have a faith that there is no God, and you project it on others.
Not believing in fictional characters is no more a statement of faith than not collectiong stamps is a hobby. Not believing is the basic state all humans are born into, it is belief which represents the movement into a faith-based position.
Certainly someone who commited the crimes that Saddam did could not have had any belief in gods.
In a similar vein, Bush says he's a christian but since he breaks the most funimental tenant of that religion on a daily basis, we can conclude that he is not in fact a christian. I dare say he might think he is, but that's more a measure of how stupid he is.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I love all of these "brave" Anonymous Coward posters. They are like the jihadists who wear ski masks to hide their faces--very brave indeed.
"Care about people's opinions and you will be their prisoner." ~~Tao Te Ching~~
In that case asserting that Gandalf the wizard and Bagpuss are fictional characters is an assertion of reglious faith. If that's how you want to define religious faith then go ahead, but don't think it has anything to do with real life.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"God exists."
"Gandalf exists."
These two statements have the same content: a character in a book is claimed to be real. Explain what the difference is and why disagreeing with the first one is an act of religion but not the second one.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Life?
Last I checked, we're pushing Lies, we Torture and have been called on it by the UN and most countries, and the Middle Class is under attack.
The military can't win if people refuse to deal with reality.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I already did. The second one is all one knows at birth; it is the basic state from which one moves, it is not a position one has to move to. The statement that god exists is a position one has to take up, usually when very young and inexperienced. I never did because my parents worked hours that prevented them going to church until I was old enough to think for myself by which time I had seen and read lots of stories and could see that there was no inherent difference between "God exists" and "Aslan exists" or "the Moomins are real, you know."
With no more evidence for the first of these than the last there was no reason to move from the position I had (that every one has) at birth. Not getting into a car for a drive is not a type of journey, and not beleving in a god is not a type of religion.
The key here is that non-existance is not a quality of a deity or anything else just as black is not a colour.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I appreciate the info!
Concise OED, ninth ed: "Black, n , very dark, having no colour from the absorbtion of all or nearly all incident light". Black is not a colour, it is the absense of colour. Black paint is simply paint which removes all colours equally and (if perfectly black) totally. Black in Photoshop is 0% red, 0% green, 0% blue, in otherwords the absense of colour.
When you assert that God does not exist, you are driving down the road.
When I say "I do not believe that god exists" I am refusing to get into the car. If I say to you that "The Moomins exist" and you reply "I don't believe you", in what way are you making a religious statement?
Your argument is coloured by an assumption that the existance of God(s) is in some way self-evident and therefore you see any different position as a reaction away from that. But it's not, I didn't start where you did so I'm not moving in reaction to that position.
Again, you inject your faith into it and pre-suppose God is a fictional character.
No. I presuppose that both are in books. The issue is that one book is as good as another. You are injecting from nowhere the axiom that the Bible is by definition a special book and "Moominland Midwinter" is not and comparing the two is unreasonable. Why? What is the basis for this?
You are adding faith, I am stating what happens when faith is not applied: one is left with two books, nothing more and nothing less. Both have characters in them. Some are believable and some are not. That's a simple objective observation.
Again: what is the origin of your presupposition that comparing these sets of characters is not valid? What characteristic of the Bible distinguishes it from the Moomin books? Or from the Bhagavad Gita or Lord of the Rings, or - most pertinently - the epic of Gilgamesh? What is there about the Bible that allows you to say that it can not be simply looked at as a text written by someone somewhere that has no intrinsic veracity? There is nothing I can see, which leaves us with the conclusion that it is you who are adding something to the picture, you who is making a faith based statement, not me. I'm just saying this is a book, nothing more.
Look: over there on the horizon: it's the topic! Wave goodbye, everyone!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
...like some folks do. I mean, if you want to discuss wild assed whacko conspiracy theories, look no farther than any random executive branch press release...
The PNAC documents aren't relevant? Guys in big positions in government now who outlined what sneaky crap they were going to pull in the middle east and did it, based on the "new pearl harbor" 9-11 attacks? The 93 WTC attack, with a fed inside, yet the attack occurred, that's not relevant and a major clue? That's pretty relevant. The gulf of tonkin attacks, now admitted to be 99% fabrication? We aren't supposed to be seeing patterns here?
Sorry, I admit a long time ago being extremely naieve and just believing the government all the time...a long time ago...then I noticed the JFK whack..wenjt WTF?? and well, what they said about it certainly STUNK BAD. Pretty obvious there was more to it than the "lone nut". I gets to thinking... been paying attention since then.
Tell ya what, little about me. I worked for the goldwater campaign. I saw what these neocons are about, what they do, how they act, their character, what motivates them. You see, there was a big internal civil war of a sorts back then, and unfortunately, the "paleo" wing of the party lost, the side I supported, and still would if it even existed as an organized party, the neocons (we call them that now, didn't then) "won" and have controled the R party since. I saw it go down. You get it yet, they sabotaged their own "party" candidate, so that later on their wing would take over, and it did, and we still got them. These guys are lying murdering goons man. Give it up, you are being lead by chronic serial liars and blood profiteers. And that is just the regular cold hearted ones, there's some serious megalomaniacal "armageddon endtimes" nutjobs mixed in there, too, REAL scary guys. And they got some pretty high level cooperation going in with some elements in the dim party as well, along with some entrenched bureaucracy of the criminal sort, in both the civil, mil and paramil areas of "government". Not all, but enough and high enough so some pretty weird stuff goes down..and has been going down for a long time.. It's a racket, dig? A racket, a big fat giant trillion buck like the mafia but on turbo boost and nitro *racket*. That's it, it's that simple, they prove it over and over again. And 9-11? That stinks worse than the kennedy whack, them boys got their prints all over that, fits their MO to a T..
They don't care about other humans.
I don't WISH it that way, but I would be amiss, especially to any of the younger readers here, to not speak out against it. At least, give them a chance to think on things some and realise you DON'T have to take what the government says all the time at face value. that's a pretty important lesson to learn for anyone really. I've always had this pesky 'civic duty' deal with me. Some times I wish I didn't, but mostly I am OK with it, seems to be my old fashioned square boy scout nature. If I really thought they were right, righteous, making sense, on the up and up, were honest, etc, I would SAY SO. I would be OVERJOYED to be able to say so.
But I can't.
I ain't shy. None, zero. I gain nothing by saying what I say, other than trying to pass on a little insight, the best a dude can do based on personal anecdotal, data anlaysis, and the willingness to talk about things. I am not going to lie or sugar coat anything, no reason to, and it would be..hmm, how to put it.. just wrong,man, dishonest of me, I just don't *do* that. Sorry if it offends anyone but it's designed to make people think about what they have been told as opposed to what really happens and what is likely to happen.
I do hope you realize that George Bush is a Methodist. That is not and never was a fundamentalist brand of christianity. It's not my cup of tea (I'm romanian byzantine catholic) but if you're going to make the methodists into an unreliable sect that also knocks Hillary out as she belongs to the same Church.
George Bush was elected by a lot of people. You can bet that if he was really in the pocket of the fundamentalists we wouldn't have 5 Catholics on the USSC, the first time that's happened. Christian fundamentalists aren't known for being fond of us papists.
President Ahmadenijad is undertaking physical preparations for the arrival of the Mahdi in a way that is clear and unmistakable. Contrary to your fantasies, this is unique on the political world stage today.
try again, troll, Garrison was on to something, pretty obvious. Anyway, that's enough, you can have the last word, no more replies to ACs.
~D
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
"People constantly criticize the US for supporting bad, violent, etc, leaders. Well, as soon as we remove one, that we did at one time support, why are people still upset at the US? Shouldn't you people congratulate us for finally recognizing at least ONE of our past mistakes and taking steps to correct it?"
Oh I don't think our actions had anything to do with correcting a past mistake. You have a real uphill battle to support that point of view.
I'm thinking that it is far more likely that we wanted a permanent military presents in the region. I'm sure that there are those in the Administration who feel it never hurts to have a big stick in an oil rich area of the world.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
the gov't is spending more money on propaganda then on the actual reconstruction. Gee, I wonder what speaks louder, an article that says that the US is rebuilding Iraq and things are getting better, or the crazy terrorist who is blowing up religious shrines and killing people. Maybe if Rummy actually tried to fix the problems he and his boss created he would have better luck.
Fool me once...shame on you, fool me twice...won't be fooled again (our president)