»D1st0rt Posted December 18, 2003 Report Posted December 18, 2003 rofl. Some of the longest posts ive ever seen in my life
MonteZuma Posted December 18, 2003 Report Posted December 18, 2003 ...In summary, anyone who believes that what the British or American soldiers did is a brave and just thing to have done is cleary a individual of low inteigence, as they alowed themselfs to be controled by American propeganda, and follow the lead of a man who, as I have said many times, is quiet cleary an idiot.Whilst I don't agree with the war, I think it is wrong to blame the soldiers involved, or to doubt their bravery. They were/are serving their country. Responsibility for any military or political mess that results from this intervention rests with politicians and beaurocrats(sp?). I agree though that anyone who falls for the propoganda needs their head read. For a start...What makes the American woman who was captured (rescued?) by the Iraqis during the invasion any braver than Saddam Hussein? Why didn't she fight to the death for what she believes in like some insist that Saddam should have done? And what makes it a spider-hole when Saddam hides in a ditch, but a fox-hole when an American does the same? Pathetic. Monte.
Aileron Posted December 19, 2003 Report Posted December 19, 2003 So American General Shanchez, the guy who coined the phrase spider hole, isn't allowed to be biased in favor of the United States? Don't get me wrong, but I think when somebody rises to the rank of General in the armed forces of any country, I think a little biased at!@#$%^&*ude in favor of the country which he works for is a requirement as a matter of fact. Besides the purpose of the term "spider hole" is to point out how small the hole was, not make Hussein seem more cowardly. In summary, anyone who believes that what the British or American soldiers did is a brave and just thing to have done is cleary a individual of low inteigence, as they alowed themselfs to be controled by American propeganda, and follow the lead of a man who, as I have said many times, is quiet cleary an idiot. Oh, I love this arguement. All my opponents are idiots, therefore I am right. How old are you, five? That is the exact same arguement playgroung children use, except that they usually are smart enough not to believe it seriously. I dunno though, all Americans must be stupid; I thought those words are spelled "propaganda" and "themselves". Your "superior" intelligence really shows. Please just stop posting. The only thing you are proving is that you are a moron not worth anyone's time. Why am I posting here? I have not seen any logical arguement come forth since my last post except that chart. Besides, as I pointed out my last post, even if it was for oil, the arguement still doesn't work. Suppose you had to walk home through Harlem NY. There were two allys that you could go down. One ally would ensure that a murderer comes out and kills you, and then takes all the money in your wallet; in the other, a thief comes out and picks your pockets. Which ally would you choose? Logically, the second, because you lose less by any standard. The first ally is Iraq under Hussein, the second is the US, !@#$%^&*uming the Oil War arguement holds true. Also, suppose there was a third alley, representing the UN going into Iraq. Since you consider the UN to be a completely holy organization, lets assume that in this alley you find a $20 bill on the ground. Wouldn't this third ally be even better? Face it, the oil war arguement is pathetic. Even if you prove its impossible to prove premises (The chart doesn't prove it. The premise is that the INTENT was to go for oil, the chart can only prove results.), it still does not logically follow. That is probably why we went to war without good announced justification. That arguement is so emotional and insulting that just about anything will beat it. However, just because there wasn't good announced justification doesn't mean good justification doesn't exist. I already figured out Bush's intent and how this action will eventually win the war on terrorism, as well as poverty in the Middle East. I'd give it to you, but for the sake of length and the fact that you wouldn't read it anyway, I'll hold off unless you ask. I will just say this: the reason for this conflict is not only the effects on Iraq itself, but the effects this action will have on surrounding nations. You people really don't know how big this really is.
Bacchus Posted December 19, 2003 Report Posted December 19, 2003 Post it, i'll read it. I'd like someone to show how "big" the scope of US gov is. because quite frankly, I saw nothing but twisted and -*BAD WORD*-ed up arguments about democracy, poverty, freedom and duty...as if those ideas were american inc. property.
Aileron Posted December 20, 2003 Report Posted December 20, 2003 Well, it really goes back to the War on Terror. It is obvious that this war will not be won when we defeat the terrorists, but when we remove the root causes of terrorism. In my opinion, the root causes of terrorism were the Crusades as well as a struggle over Islamic philosophy at around AD 1300. The former causes their religious zeal as well as their "us vs. them" mentality, the later their fear of modern ideas. It could have been retaliation for the things the US did to Middle Eastern Countries. However, those actions were mostly economic, and the US did worse things to other countries that are not terroristic for the most part. Overall, while there were things the US could have done to prevent terrorism to be done to the US, the root causes of terrorism are mostly in the Middle Eastern political system and their poverty, both have been in place for centuries. Overall, I would say it is 90% the Middle East politics and 10% United States' actions. It is also important to note that for all practical proportions, terrorists fill in their ranks from Middle Eastern Muslims. Yes, there are other groups, but for the most part all terrorists fit this description. However, the specific country of origion varies. Most seem to be Saudi, but to eliminate terrorism overall, one has to widen the scope to the Middle East in general. Now going back to my first paragraph, there should be an obvious question - If the majority of the root causes of terrorism are centuries old, why is it only a modern problem? Well, there are three things that changed recently. The first is that WWII changed the defignition of warfare to include attack of civilians, partially justifying the action and more importantly providing a tactical reason to do so. Secondly, modern weaponry, particularly Soviet surplus, are making terrrorism felt where it wouldn't be noticed before. In this category, I will also include other modern technology such as 747s. However, the third reason is the most important. The thing is that of the causes of terrorism, the %10 determines the target. Previously, the other 90 still existed, but the 10 has alway been either foreign occupants or other Middle Eastern countries and nationalities. Thus, it was wise for the rest of the world to just simply try to stay out of this crud. The United States by all means could try to do this. However, there are two problems with this. The first is that as soon as terrorists stop hating the US, they will start hating somebody else. This is by all means tolerable. However, here is the kicker-if terrorism is felt when they get ahold of some 50 year old Soviet pea-shooters, what will happen when they get WMDs? Face it, there are enough WMDs in the world to destroy it a few hundred times over, and the only thing preventing doomsday is the sanity of those with them. Terrorists are probably the only group crazy enough to actually use nukes, or atleast it is dangerous to assume otherwise. The number of WMD holding countries will only increase, so one must assume that eventually all countries will have them. It is also important to note that it is not necessarily a WMD, but some technology necessary to be painfull. Thus, the 90% percent cannot be ignored. If we p!@#$%^&* the target baton to another country and they get nuked, we still lose. Yes, the time between now and the time terrorists or somebody with a similar mindset get a nuke is a long way off, probably several decades. However, in order to change the 90%, we need to change the entire social and political structure of the entire Middle East. It is a race between the West's ability to change the political atmosphere of the Middle East, and the terrorist's ability to do damage. What the attack on Al Queda in Afghanistan did was buy time. We effectively dismantled their major operations for a while. However, they will grow back, and even if we destroyed them most likely another group will replace them. We need to change the political atmosphere. There are three ways to do this - diplomatic, economic, and militarily. The former will not work, because to ask a king or dictator to voluntarily give up their position is to ask too much. Even if they were willing to give up power, odds are based on history that the first thing a democratically elected leader in the Middle East would do is execute the previous leader, the second would be to declare a new dictatorship. Thus diplomacy will not work. We should always try it, but in this case shouldn't be suprised when it doesn't work. Economic wouldn't work either. In order to do it, we would need to send in a bunch of soft civilian targets that would be all to convenient for a terrorist to attack. Military also works, but as always should only be reserved as a last resort. However decision on this should hold off until we chose the first country to change. Bush had the decision of every country east of the Red Sea and west of India, and all of them must be eventually changed for the War of Terrorism to be won and disaster averted. It could have been any. However, he chose to modernize Iraq first because Hussein is an easy political target. There are many advantages to going into Iraq. They had a history of WMDs, and likely still had them. Thus, attacking Iraq will buy us even more time. They also have a modern population that can read and write, are past the second agricultural and industrial revolutions. And, ofcourse, they have the oil, which when looked at from the Iraqi perspecitve will help money flow into their country. That is because regardless, the US will buy the oil from them. Selling the most valueble resource to the richest country in the world can really make somebody rich, and the Iraqis have that potential. All that money to their new capitalist economy will make builidng a self sufficient economy and political system all the more easier. The disadvantages to going into Iraq were few. The first, and the one hurting the Bush administration now, is that there was no absolute proof Iraq had WMDs. However, the scale of what we are trying to do don't allow us time to find it and all indications gave that they still had them. This arguement was given by France and Germany in the UN summits. The second was that Hussein did not directly support terrorism. This is what was given by Russia. As a matter of fact, Hussein would do what he could to eliminate terrorists in his country. He had a secular regime rather than a religious one. This arguement that Putin gave is one of the best I have seen, and if more arguements like this were given in April, the war would have been fought in a much better fashion. However, when one weighs the good and bad consequences of going into each country, one can understand why Bush decided to go into Iraq first. It also explains his justifications. First, it explains why they are so bad, because we can scare surrounding regimes to modernize more effectively if we supposedly take somebody out without a good reason. It also explain the "imminent threat" arguement. We weren't trying to prevent a scud attack tommorow; we were trying to prevent a terrorist style attack a few decades from now, and the only reason it was imminent is because the threat is coming from several countries that will take time to subdue. Overall, the reason we are going into Iraq really doesn't have to do with Iraq itself. It really has to do with the entire social and political system which Iraq is part of. It really didn't have to be Iraq, but it had to be atleast one and most likely all Middle Eastern countries. The capture of Hussein marks the near end of conflict in Iraq. However, the true conflict is far from over. The goal of this conflict is the pacification and modernization of the entire middle east. The battlefield spans from the desert of Saudi Arabia to the mountains of Pakistan. It is a conflict that cannot be stopped and cannot be avoided. Don't want to fight every tiny insignificant regime? Too bad. The reward for action will be a modernized and gratefull people. The consequences of inaction will make Sept. 11 look insignificant.
Aileron Posted December 20, 2003 Report Posted December 20, 2003 I warned you about the length. Overall, the point is that I thought through it and didn't use that freedom crap that even I don't believe. Thus, I would greatly appreciate it if you people stop making those !@#$%^&*umptions about the way supporters think.
scruff Posted December 20, 2003 Report Posted December 20, 2003 Your honestly trying to say thew George Bush isn't an idiot? The man says the most stupid things when hes unscripted, he is completly inept at his job. The reason that there are terorists is that when the US retaliates, it doesn't target just the terrorists, it goes for whole countries. It goes for the isreali aproach, kill 7 palestines for every jew killed. No wonder there are terrorists. If they want to rejuice terrorism we should integrate these countries into the world, not alienate them, and invade them, killing there poeple. Terrorists are normal people untill an American (or British) smart bomb kills their wife and children, I now for sure that if that happened to me I'd feel disenclined to the county that did it.
madhaha Posted December 20, 2003 Report Posted December 20, 2003 Too few facts Aileron. I see many MANY !@#$%^&*umptions and lots of speculation built on pretty poor logic. What we have is a rationalisation, a believer defying commonsense, past experience and hard evidence. Please open yourself to objective analysis. Also your conclusion is NOT supported by current evidence. How about we wait a year and then count the number of words you have to eat Scruff: George Bush's percieved intelligence has little/no bearing on the matter. You're aware that his policies are decided by other parties and are enacted by his military. His intelligence is irrelevant. I see his actions as criminal hiding behind inep!@#$%^&*ude. Perhaps you could research further instead of taking everything at face value. One thing that's nagging me about this whole issue is how Saddam's location was pinpointed. The press says information was "extracted" from a large number of his supporters, extracted being a common euphemism for torture/blackmail. What has happened to these people? Who were they? How widespread was the extraction of information?
scruff Posted December 21, 2003 Report Posted December 21, 2003 His inteligence, while not totally relevent, does have some bearing on the issue. He does after all, decide on what the troops in iraq ultimatly do.He controls the most powerfull country in the world, surely his inteligence is of prime concern? And surly you have to consider how in the name of god the man got into power, he would have trouble making it through high school, with any decent grades at the end.
Bacchus Posted December 21, 2003 Report Posted December 21, 2003 That's mad's point scruff Anyone with objectivity and a little wits can easily find out that Bush Jr. isn't very gifted. The man was implicated in a couple of frauds, have spelled failure for any Co. he directed, etc.Hence he needs advisors more than anything else. I read your post Ail. And as Mad said, you're !@#$%^&*uming a lot. Do you have any sources related to what you're saying? Living out of US of A i may need more analytical input..you present some arguments like if they were common sense and i must say that my common sense is rebuked. Please, sources and/or related facts that i could use like way point...Nin's last post is a good exemple; i know what he's talking about or i can find info about it, very easily. I may not agree with all he says but at least i can see that his analysis sprung from something else than gross prejudice and misinformations.
MonteZuma Posted December 21, 2003 Report Posted December 21, 2003 ...the purpose of the term "spider hole" is to point out how small the hole was, not make Hussein seem more cowardly....Well you've been taken...hook, line and sinker....by one of the gayest sound-bites to come out of the war on terror.... It had nothing to do with the size of the hole and everything to do with an attempt to use language to de-humanise and villainise Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the media-watching public. Given the attrocities that this guy has commited, I see it as an insult to my intelligence that they they think they need to stoop that low to make me think he is a bad guy. The fact is its propaganda. Plain and simple. Those were just two examples...this war has been filled with propaganda from both sides. I would like to think that I live in a culture that tries to rise above that kind of thing. Monte.
Aileron Posted December 23, 2003 Report Posted December 23, 2003 ...the purpose of the term "spider hole" is to point out how small the hole was, not make Hussein seem more cowardly....Well you've been taken...hook, line and sinker....by one of the gayest sound-bites to come out of the war on terror.... It had nothing to do with the size of the hole and everything to do with an attempt to use language to de-humanise and villainise Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the media-watching public. Given the attrocities that this guy has commited, I see it as an insult to my intelligence that they they think they need to stoop that low to make me think he is a bad guy. The fact is its propaganda. Plain and simple. Those were just two examples...this war has been filled with propaganda from both sides. I would like to think that I live in a culture that tries to rise above that kind of thing. Monte. I think you are overreacting to two stupid words. The way media manipulation works is by the choice of what stories are covered, what extent they are, and little side comments they tag with the stories at the end. The wording plays a role, but it is insignificant. Why try to tone something down with words when you can not mention it completely? An example of media manipulation in Iraq is the Jessica Lynch story. Huge weeks of coverage and a movie for something that really shouldn't be mentioned at all. "Spider hole" is not. Hussein's capture is newsworthy, and the term was coined mostly because there is little other way to describe it. Yes, a desire to dehumanize Hussein may of played a role, but one can't really put that much of a message in two words. Besides, as I mentioned in the last post in the part where you dotted out, the term "spider hole" was coined by a US General, not the media. As for the criticisms of my long post, yes it is a little choppy and incomplete. However, in order to fix those problems, I would have had to make it even longer. I put enough in there so that you could fill in the blanks if you really want to. Making the post stronger is simply not worth the time.
Bacchus Posted December 23, 2003 Report Posted December 23, 2003 I personally wouldn't lose time "patching" !@#$%^&*umptions. Since you can't forward any sources or related links, and since your post present nothing that i can hook upon for further research (i certainly could but if you think we're too lazy and/or doesn't worth the job anyway, i can't see why i would do you the favor of digging deeper in your ideas), the only viable option i see is to file it under "rubbish".
mr. scruff Posted December 24, 2003 Report Posted December 24, 2003 The Americans are treating the capture of Saddam as some great acheivment. It isn't. It is really very insigneficant, he was never going to regain power in Iraq, if he was caught or not. But the latest from Bush "saddam should get the death penalty". Political genius.
Canada_rox Posted December 25, 2003 Report Posted December 25, 2003 You know its no surprise that saddams been caught. Us intelligence is very capable and will catch Bin Laden as well. But its destroying Alqueida (i spelt that wrong I know) thats the tricky part. How do you stop ppl beleiving in God? Well I say god because they beleive in it so strongly that it is like beleiving in god.
Aileron Posted December 25, 2003 Report Posted December 25, 2003 Well, that was my overall point in the long post. The causes of terrorism are very widespread. In order to eliminate it, we have to change their overall beliefs. It is obviously more difficult than just killing Bin Laden or dismantling Al Queda. In order to change their beliefs, we pretty much have to change the whole Middle Eastern culture. That was pretty much the point of the long post, nothing more. (As for Bacchus: Sorry, but I don't have the time to write a political paper for you, and even if I did it wouldn't change your mind anyway.)
mr. scruff Posted December 25, 2003 Report Posted December 25, 2003 we have to change their overall beliefs Oppinions like that are the cause in terorism, they can believe in what ever they want.
»nintendo64 Posted December 25, 2003 Report Posted December 25, 2003 Try to control the insults, Scruff. -nintendo64
Bacchus Posted December 25, 2003 Report Posted December 25, 2003 In order to eliminate it, we have to change their overall beliefs. I think that this is precisely what a terrorist wants to do, no? change our occidental minds, eradicate our way of thinking and living. I just recalled a thought by M. Moore, it was basically saying this: When someone bombs us by surprise killing innocents, we call him terrorist. When we launch precision bombs killing innocent we call it collaterals. What i asked wasn't a political paper Ail. I asked for sources, material i can relate to in order to better understand your point of view...not necessarily agree with it. You see, i'm prepare to share ideas even if they are different than yours...whereas you seem to think that since i won't agree you won't loose time on me. Well, this is arrogant and presomptuous. oh well...anyway...
Aileron Posted December 27, 2003 Report Posted December 27, 2003 I apologize. I mistakingly grouped you with the "Bush is an idiot/US is greedy/You are all brainwashed by the media/I am the only person on the planet with a brain" crowd. It jis ust after seing so many peeps have that at!@#$%^&*ude, I began !@#$%^&*uming that everybody had that at!@#$%^&*ude. It was wrong for me to make that !@#$%^&*umption just as wrong My sources were pretty much what I remember when I watched the discussions at the UN. The flaws in that are obviously that my memory isn't perfect, and that I am interpreting it instead of quoting it. All I am using however is that France and Germany made more of a "Let's wait until we get more proof approach while Russia had more of a "There isn't any ties between Hussein and terrorists" approach. I also used a website I did on anchient Iraqi history to cite the struggle over Islamic philosophy in AD 1300s. I don't have the url on me, but I think it was on www.saleh.net or something like that. However, all I wanted to do with that was prove that terrorists use a lot of relgious philosophy. I got the information about latin america from the Latin American cultures course I took last year. I can't really give you that citation, so I will use logic instead. If you had two identical resources, one on the other side of the world, the other a little ways south of you, which would you tap first? Logically, the US has to affect the western hemisphere more than the eastern. Also, ask N64. He knows very well how much money Latin American countries owe the US. Just hollar if I missed anything Overall, I think standing by itself, going into Iraq is mostly nuetral. There can be arguements for or against the action, but they will really take us nowhere. However, I think that the real moral action would have been for the whole world to go in in 1992. (yes, he invaded Kuwait in 91, but such a campaign to remove him likely would have taken a little while longer.) That way, we would have prevented all of the pain and suffering since then, would have sent a much clearer message to other dictators, and there would be no doubt about our reactions. You invade another country without trying to justify it, you get attacked - plain and simple. What was wrong is what we did do. We gave Hussein "mercy" and left Iraq with "peace". However, from that point on, Kurdish rebels almost constantly kept revolting, and the US was left to enforce the no-fly zones. We would leave them in this state until we got definitive proof of the status of his WMDs. If he had them, we would finish him off and look like heros. If he didn't, the number of Kurdish rebels would double the next day, because they would no longer have to fear annihilation by chemical gases. And no doubts about it, half of the worlds powers would line up to give them a little traing here and a few weapons there. Overall, this whole "peace" from 91 on was nothing more than a sick and demented game. The goal of it was the eventual destruction of Hussein in a way that would keep the world leader's hands clean. They wanted Hussein down, but they didn't want to play a part in taking him down. However, Husseing obviously played it smart. He did all he could to leave it ambiguous. Thus, the world didn't have the nice clean proof they wanted, but the rebels couldn't risk more open attacks. However, this wasn't complete. In order to contain Hussein and this game of death, we needed to establish a no-fly zone. The enforcement of this zone lied mostly with US and British forces. Why was Bush and Blair not as willing to continue this? Partially because the game failed to keep their hands clean. Think about it, Desert Storm was a UN action. The economic sanctions and the weapons inspections were also UN mandates. Why does Iraq then hate the US? Because in the end, we were the ones who had to drop bombs on their AA equipment. Somebody earlier said that the term "spider hole" was media manipulation. "Spider hole" wasn't media manipulation; the fact that for twelve years, an environment of almost daily bombings as well as revolutionary activity counted as peace is media manipulation. Face it, the rest of the world screwed the Iraqi people as well as the US, all so that they can look like golden boys by not finishing the fight. Bush an idiot? Hardly. The US was getting nothing out of this so-called peace except animosity from the Iraqi people. Clinton was the idiot for accepting these terms in the first place! US is greedy and selfish? Well, if not wanting to be corn-packed counts as selfish, then guilty as charged. At the moment I am not saying that going into Iraq was the absolute right thing to do. All I'm saying that the so called peace between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom was an abomination.
mr. scruff Posted December 27, 2003 Report Posted December 27, 2003 Interesting fact, America train what evolved into Al Queda, and unless I am mistaken, funded Osama against the Russians who were invading afganistan, giving them weapons, land to air missile, so take out the Russian helicopters, the american CIA is pretty bad about doing these things. Also America funded Sadam in his early days, to ward of the threat of Iran. How ironic to think that now the tables have turned eh? Bush is an idiot/US is greedy/You are all brainwashed by the media Bush is an idiot, america is greedy, and lots off ppl are brainwashed by the media, like the person who started this topic.
A Soldier Posted December 27, 2003 Report Posted December 27, 2003 http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/infoc...ture=5OzkqD.var saddam would have been captured ~ three months before we saw him on TV?
madhaha Posted December 27, 2003 Report Posted December 27, 2003 The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories The mother of all conspiracy theories is woven by Abd Al-Bari Atwan' date=' the Editor-in-Chief of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi - the one daily, aside from Saddam's regime dailies, which no longer exist, that has remained loyal to "President Saddam Hussein."(10) For Atwan, "The U.S. and its mighty propaganda machine are involved in a disinformation campaign that reaches the level of terrorism" to mislead public opinion. Here is his evidence in four parts: First, the pictures distributed by the Americans about Saddam's hideout show a palm tree behind the soldier who uncovered the hole where Saddam was hiding. The palm tree carried a cluster of pre-ripened yellow dates, which might suggest that Saddam was arrested at least three months earlier, because dates ripen in the summer months when they turn into their natural black or brown color. Atwan concludes that the arrest was "a staged show and the place of arrest [was'] completely elsewhere.(11) Second, if there were two rooms connected with the hole in which Saddam was captured, what explains the fact, asks Atwan, that Saddam "appeared filthy and looked like a man who did not bathe in weeks, if not in months." Third, statements about Saddam's alleged cooperation were contradictory. Amb!@#$%^&*ador Paul Bremer said that Saddam was cooperating, while Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that he was not. Fourth, Atwan alleges that there were bruises on Saddam's face and over his brow. In addition, Saddam behaved like a robot while he was being examined. The videos showed Saddam touching his cheeks but Atwan was able to surmise that Saddam was probing his face "as if he just woken up from coma." This led Atwan to suggest that the probing may be due to the use of nerve gas while Saddam's hideout was being raided, not unlike the gas used by the Russians against the Chechen rebels who took over the Bolshoi Palace [theatre] and which paralyzed them for hours. The alleged use of gas may explain why Saddam did not resist, and hence there is a need for "impartial experts...to analyze the dirt in the hideout and the surrounding area to reveal the truth."(12) Conclusion In his article, mentioned earlier, Al-Dhayidi concludes: "The time has come for us to read the history and the present as it happened and as it happens, not as we wish it to happen. These thick layers of illusions and lies that have surrounded our minds for too long and concealed from us the light and the air are our biggest enemy. Our real enemy is our ignorance. Worst yet - it is our cheerfulness and appreciation for this ignorance. We are the product of our history. And we are those who carried out [the attacks of] September 11 and subsequently May 12 [2003], and last but not least we are those who blew up the Muhaya quarters [in Riyadh], not the Mossad and not Ibn Saba [a mythical figure allegedly involved in the murder of the third Caliph]. Let us stop drinking dirty water because it will not satisfy our thirst no matter how much more we drink [of it]."(13) * Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli is Senior Analyst of MEMRI's Middle East Economic Studies Program. Interesting... We can definately establish the validity of some of the arguments presented (the dates in the tree for example). It also ties in very neatly with what we know about the severe tampering of media reports at the fall of Baghdad (examine the orchastration of the fall of Sadam's statue, the carefully selected camera views, the conveniently handy american crane and pre-show arrangement for the flag that was on the WTC at 9/11 to be draped on tthe statue's face etc.). Which leads us to questions like why was there a three month delay? The possibilities that occur to me are: the evidence tampering required more time (unlikely considering the speed at which they work and the funding), the interrogators needed more time before they excecute Saddam, the conspirators needed more propaganda (a higher death toll and/or more visible proof of America rebuilding Iraq "look we've built playgrounds!"), the political timing wasn't right (perhaps they were looking for an opportunity to use it as a smokescreen at a later date?) OR the whole thing was planned to co-incide with Christmas.
Bacchus Posted December 27, 2003 Report Posted December 27, 2003 political wild card maybe... Keep the search going for as long as you can, if public opinion backs you for 6 months, a year, 2...good, you're a winner. Use this freebie time as you wish, question the captive, etc, etc. When the polls shows that the public needs a little extra show..feed them bs. and sensationalism. Perfectly tuned, prepared and accounted for information. With nothing compromising, no leaks, etc. This was a media bomb, was there something worth of interest like a democrat speech or gathering? a law or amendment about to go out? a reported mad cow case maybe...
Recommended Posts