am i the only person bother by the fact that of the 14 defining characteristics of a facists government bushes america could have the case made for it to fall into all 14 of them.

My friend, I am very interested in the 14 characteristics of fascism, can you provide more information?

lawerence brit facism anyone that the article if your intrested.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/Fourteen_Signs_of_Fascism.pdf

I would agree it has fallen to all of them except sexism, while the leadership of the entire Republican Party may be males, i believe that condelizza rice is still in power, right ?

This thread made me chuckle.

Yes, because we poor repressed Americans live under a fascist regime. Let's see just how fascist it is when the Bush finises his term and exits, peacefully, in 2008. Generally, fascists declair martial law, suspend the constitution and begin repressing "the people" before the election happens. Why has none of this happened yet?

~String

Because the people who propose shit like this think that the entire world is a conspiracy that they are somehow being left out of...

am i the only person bother by the fact that of the 14 defining characteristics of a facists government bushes america could have the case made for it to fall into all 14 of them.

Oh yeah, about your question, yes, you are the only one.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: definately, to the point where reality is blurred and everything needs to be resolved with force because US is always right, and if you disagree, you are a terrorist

2. Disdain for Human Rights: Patriot Act, losing the right of fair trial, wiretapping, Guantamo Bay, Abu Ghareeb and many other places not yet known, also secret prisons, this is accompanied by the US government continued hypocrisy in declaring that they are the leader of human rights and have a right to enforce it on others

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: the myth of an all-encompassing terrorist network named Alqaeda, the extreme demonization of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and now the Iranian leadership

4. Supremacy of the Military: Billions of dollars spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and further aid going to help the US military subjugate other Middle Eastern nations. Questioning of the military, even in a case such as Abu Ghareeb scandals, is deemed unpatriotic.

5. Rampant Sexism: I doubt this is will happen.

6. Controlled Mass media: Fox News, and extremely biased US media coverage reporting only the official government's line

7. Obsession with National Security: New Department of National Security, Patriot Act, massive airport security, banning nail cutters and scissors

8. Religion and Government Intertwined: The president using religious and apocalyptic messages to describe the war on terror. Radical conservatives in power.

9. Corporate Power Protected: The main support group and monetary support for the republicans, who in turn provide tax cuts for the richest Americans

10. Labor Power Suppressed: This is not true, however the government and corporate powers have found a way to make the labor unions make life harder for workers by offering the unions incentives

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and Arts: The entire global warming debate, fighting evolution in schools, and teaching of other religions, especially Islam and the Middle East in schools is highly negative

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Patriot Act, Intelligence agencies and government agencies can arrest anyone without charging them for a crime and keep them in prison and torture them for years, classifying people as enemy combatants so the US government can send them to guantanamo bay where they will be tortured by ripping out their fingernails, fake drowning, attacks by dogs, defaming their holy books

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: the deteriorating of civil rights for Muslim Americans and minorities, seizure of the oil reserves in Iraq by US companies close to Bush and his staff, like Halliburton

14. Fradulent Elections: the anti-democratic Electorial College, loss of votes and miscounting in Florida

Oh shit!

They are trying TO PROTECT OUR AIRWAYS


Facist bastards


Look out!

They dare the blame the leaders of the countries....for the problems the country is causing!


Must be facists




Lastly, your an idiot if you think they "report the governments line" the report the things that bring down morale here and abroad, quite the opposite of the governments idea.



what evidence do you have to the plight of Muslims in america?

what evidence do you have to the plight of Muslims in america?

If the mere fact that I am a Muslim doesn't convince you then please research the following topics.

The Patriot Act

Classification of people as enemy combatants therefore not subject to human rights conventions

The right of government agencies to arrest people and keep them in custody for years on no charges and then if they do not find anything major, to charge them of minor frivolous immigration charges

Discrimination and abuse at work (even in government agencies), school, and the government allowing hate messages on US radios and Us media sources like Fox, CNN, etc

...and the government allowing hate messages on US radios and Us media sources like Fox, CNN, etc

What? So, because the US government doesn't SENSOR the airwaves, it's somehow fascist? What planet are you from? Just to clarify... does a free nation BAN certain types of speech because they are too ugly for you to handle?

Nevermind. I'm not sure you know what you mean anyway.

This topic started off as pointless, and now it's descended into utter nonsense. The US government is guilty of a lot of bad shit... along with about 193 OTHER national governments on Earth. One thing, no matter what ridiculous nonsense you post online, the Bush administration is hardly fascist. Has it stopped free elections? No-- the Dems currently hold the Congress, and will probably win the presidency the next round. Has it curtailed free speech in the press or of its citizens? Hardly... otherwise I wouldn't have to have listened to liberal hood-ornaments, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore puke their nonsense across the nation-- from sea to shining sea! Was habeas corpus suspended in this country? No. If it was, I didn't hear of it other than martial law being declared in specific areas (New Orleans- Katrina, New York City- 9/11, etc.) for short periods of time. No mass imprisonments other than a few muslims-- sorry, you won't hear many of the FREE and LIBERATED American population cry for them. No mass executions.

OH-- and religion and patriotism have ALWAYS played a HUGE role in the US government. For better or worse, it's always been there. The only difference is the fact that liberals hate Bush SO much that they squeel like stuck pigs about it more than they did for Bush senior or Regan... no, wait... they bitched and moaned like little girls through their administrations as well.

~String

Generally, fascists declair martial law, suspend the constitution and begin repressing "the people" before the election happens. Why has none of this happened yet? That's a good question. There is much less preventing it than there used to be, and it would be a very good idea to identify exactly why the people who obviously want a fascist coup haven't tried one - so we don't throw that out too, along with the rest of the checks on Presidential power.

As far as the Constitution, much of it has been severely weakened, if not suspended: habeus corpus (for example) is gone, legally, with only inertia and the institutional habits of the past supporting it.

We still have the guns, and the right to refuse to quarter troops in our homes, as Bill Maher summarized it.

No mass imprisonments other than a few muslims-- sorry, you won't hear many of the FREE and LIBERATED American population cry for them. No mass executions.

Can you please explain what you mean by this?

Is unfair imprisonment of Muslims without charging any crime acceptable?

In your opinion, what would you think would be the best way to protect America from terrorism?

am i the only person bothered by the fact that of the 14 defining characteristics of a facist government; bushes america could have the case made for it to fall into all 14 of them.
You'll know you're in a fascist country when you post something like that and the next thing you know your door's being smashed in and you are never seen again.

The very fact that the leftist media is free to constantly bash Bush and call him a fascist proves he's not one, so simmer down.

Don't worry though, I have a feeling you'll get a chance to see real fascism soon enough. Perhaps right after the next major terrorist attack. There will need to be some such emergency situation with the country in chaos. Then our Augustus Ceasar will come along and restore order. Maybe then the rest of the world will get to see real imperialism too! You know, the kind where we conquer nations and demand tribute or just wipe out the local population and move in. It will be educational for everyone.

In your opinion, what would you think would be the best way to protect America from terrorism?
The best? The sane Muslims need to work with the FBI to detect and destroy the Islamofascists in their midst. They need to make clear that they will not tolerate this uncivilized, traitorous behavior.

Plan B? Arrest/Deport all noncitizen Muslims immediately and monitor all Mosques arresting any Imans promoting terrorism or anti-Americanism. If insufficient, move on to internment camps as in WW2.

I firmly believe another major terrorist attack will see Plan B implemented. So I'd advise you to help with plan A.

The best? The sane Muslims need to work with the FBI to detect and destroy the Islamofascists in their midst. They need to make clear that they will not tolerate this uncivilized, traitorous behavior.

First of all Islamofascist is a loaded word and very offensive to Muslims.

Muslims are already working with the government agencies, however more and more Muslim Americans feel that the government is not cooperating with us. Arresting people and detaining them for years then deporting them for no reason is really aggravating many of us.

In my town, our Imam has been in jail for 2 years and the FBI is trying to find some evidence on him but they haven't found anything. Every time that he has a scheduled trial date, they always push it back. As you can understand, we are very aggravated with the situation, not to mention how frustrated and sad his wife and children must feel.



Plan B? Arrest/Deport all noncitizen Muslims immediately and monitor all Mosques arresting any Imans promoting terrorism or anti-Americanism. If insufficient, move on to internment camps as in WW2.

I firmly believe another major terrorist attack will see Plan B implemented. So I'd advise you to help with plan A.

You seem rather eager for this to happen. Why do you view Muslims in such a negative light? Is it fair for the American government to start treating Muslims as the Germans treated their Jews during World War 2?

Also, how can you proclaim to love and follow Jesus (peace be to him) if you support putting innocent people behind bars?

I also want to hear string's response to my question.

That's a good question. There is much less preventing it than there used to be, and it would be a very good idea to identify exactly why the people who obviously want a fascist coup haven't tried one - so we don't throw that out too, along with the rest of the checks on Presidential power.

As far as the Constitution, much of it has been severely weakened, if not suspended: habeus corpus (for example) is gone, legally, with only inertia and the institutional habits of the past supporting it.

We still have the guns, and the right to refuse to quarter troops in our homes, as Bill Maher summarized it.

What a bunch of crap.

Please explain to me how the Constitution has been "severely weakened, if not suspended?" And look at this then try to explain how the Supreme Court and others aren't checking the administration when it treads to hardly on HC?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

Yes, because we poor repressed Americans live under a fascist regime. Let's see just how fascist it is when the Bush finises his term and exits, peacefully, in 2008. Generally, fascists declair martial law, suspend the constitution and begin repressing "the people" before the election happens. Why has none of this happened yet?

~String

you releize every facist regime came from a democracy and people who lived in nazi germany have stated that the way bush does things reminds them of hilter early in his rise to domanation.

What? So, because the US government doesn't SENSOR the airwaves, it's somehow fascist? What planet are you from? Just to clarify... does a free nation BAN certain types of speech because they are too ugly for you to handle?

Nevermind. I'm not sure you know what you mean anyway.

This topic started off as pointless, and now it's descended into utter nonsense. The US government is guilty of a lot of bad shit... along with about 193 OTHER national governments on Earth. One thing, no matter what ridiculous nonsense you post online, the Bush administration is hardly fascist. Has it stopped free elections? No-- the Dems currently hold the Congress, and will probably win the presidency the next round. Has it curtailed free speech in the press or of its citizens? Hardly... otherwise I wouldn't have to have listened to liberal hood-ornaments, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore puke their nonsense across the nation-- from sea to shining sea! Was habeas corpus suspended in this country? No. If it was, I didn't hear of it other than martial law being declared in specific areas (New Orleans- Katrina, New York City- 9/11, etc.) for short periods of time. No mass imprisonments other than a few muslims-- sorry, you won't hear many of the FREE and LIBERATED American population cry for them. No mass executions.

OH-- and religion and patriotism have ALWAYS played a HUGE role in the US government. For better or worse, it's always been there. The only difference is the fact that liberals hate Bush SO much that they squeel like stuck pigs about it more than they did for Bush senior or Regan... no, wait... they bitched and moaned like little girls through their administrations as well.

~String
that you think this thread pointless and demean it means that this country is ripe for a facist takeover. and the difference between this bush and his father is that his father respected the laws of this country

you releize every facist regime came from a democracy and people who lived in nazi germany have stated that the way bush does things reminds them of hilter early in his rise to domanation.

EVERY fascist regime started in a democracy... every last one? Or just the two you can think of?

So, you're telling me that Bush is secretly plotting to suspend the constitution and make himself the American dictator? Sure. We'll see.

Oh-- why hasn't he stopped the presidential primary process, yet? Seems like a good place if you wanna' thwart democracy? Why not kick out all those liberal Democrats in congress? Are they plotting with him too? Please clue us into your secret knowledge of his scheeming.

~String

that you think this thread pointless and demean it means that this country is ripe for a facist takeover.

The debate isn't pointless-- freedome vs tyrany. But your assertions are juvinile and pointless. You have yet to prove any of the points you set off to prove. All of those "points" could be said about any number of American presidents, including Roosavelt and Lincoln.

~String

EVERY fascist regime started in a democracy... every last one? Or just the two you can think of?

So, you're telling me that Bush is secretly plotting to suspend the constitution and make himself the American dictator? Sure. We'll see.

Oh-- why hasn't he stopped the presidential primary process, yet? Seems like a good place if you wanna' thwart democracy? Why not kick out all those liberal Democrats in congress? Are they plotting with him too? Please clue us into your secret knowledge of his scheeming.

~String

bout the only one that didn't was the regime in indonesia i think the ones in spain, germany, italy, and latin america all sprung forth from democracies.

The debate isn't pointless-- freedome vs tyrany. But your assertions are juvinile and pointless. You have yet to prove any of the points you set off to prove. All of those "points" could be said about any number of American presidents, including Roosavelt and Lincoln.

~String

your the one who said it was pointless not me

It is pointless, as nobody has posted anything other than their unsubstantiated opinions and the opinions of others. Try making a real argument, based on matters of record. For example, I presented evidence that HC isn't being ignored...

I agree the US has certainly moved a long way towards fascism. I disagree that having a few women in the Bush administration makes them not sexist. They have always been the party against a woman's inherent right to control over her own body. This has been framed as a religious issue, but I think that's another con.

Detail examples of how the US has "moved a long way towards fascism?"

First of all Islamofascist is a loaded word and very offensive to Muslims.


You seem rather eager for this to happen. Why do you view Muslims in such a negative light? Is it fair for the American government to start treating Muslims as the Germans treated their Jews during World War 2?

Also, how can you proclaim to love and follow Jesus (peace be to him) if you support putting innocent people behind bars?

I also want to hear string's response to my question.

1. Oh man... Islamofascist is hurting your feelings? Go cry about it.
2. Why do we view them in a negative light?.... Let's see... 9/11, terrorist attacks in general, the intolerance that they seem to have within the ME... gee, I wonder why.
3. I'd be willing to bet that String isn't religious, but in case he isn't I'll just say that I, for one, am atheist, that's how I deal with it.





In your opinion, what would you think would be the best way to protect America from terrorism?

Unrealistically?: Deport all the Muslims.
Realistically?: Build the wall between US and Mexico, increase national guard presence along that wall, deport all illegals, etc. etc.


If the mere fact that I am a Muslim doesn't convince you then please research the following topics.

The Patriot Act

Classification of people as enemy combatants therefore not subject to human rights conventions

The right of government agencies to arrest people and keep them in custody for years on no charges and then if they do not find anything major, to charge them of minor frivolous immigration charges

Discrimination and abuse at work (even in government agencies), school, and the government allowing hate messages on US radios and Us media sources like Fox, CNN, etc

1. You choose to be Muslim, we won't kill you in the US for converting to some other, less "persecuted" religion like they do in the ME. By you choosing when you have free choice it's your own goddamned fault for whatever happens; you are consenting.
2. I suggest if you want all this to stop then convince your Jihadist buddies in the ME to stop blowing themselves up, otherwise you're just as guilty as anyone else you accuse.



BTW: If anyone actually thinks that Bush is smart enough to pull off taking control of the government then, I'm sorry, but I think you have too much confidence in him.

I've spoken about the 'Bush paradox' before, that is the simultanous belief by some that he's a moron and is manipulating US and international politics for his and his cronies gain...

Please explain to me how the Constitution has been "severely weakened, if not suspended?" For three obvious examples: search and seizure with warrant only, habeus corpus, the establishment of the power to declare war in Congress, now exist only as habits if at all: they are no longer enforceable in fact.

We have a federal administration that has set up a warrantless wiretapping and surveillance operation, "disappeared" people to secret jails, obtained confession by torture and guilt by entrapment, and done this not in secret and clandestinely so as to avoid prosecution and disgrace but openly and in full knowledge of the public.

Add posse comitatus, judicial independence, financial probity, executive accountability to Congress, and documented agency accountability to the oversight bodies established, to the list of what has been lost recently.

Are these unimportant or minor features of the US Constitution, think you?


I've spoken about the 'Bush paradox' before, that is the simultanous belief by some that he's a moron and is manipulating US and international politics for his and his cronies gain... No paradox. No one, I think, has claimed that W is some kind of mastermind behind these conspiracies and power grabs.

First of all Islamofascist is a loaded word and very offensive to Muslims. Which part offends you? Islamo or Fascist? Both are appropriate. While they may be scumbags perverting your religion beyond reason, they are clearly driven by religion and use it to justify their actions. And the system of government they wish to impose upon the world bears a striking resemblence to Fascism. It would probably hit all the points mentioned in the OP.


Muslims are already working with the government agencies, however more and more Muslim Americans feel that the government is not cooperating with us. Arresting people and detaining them for years then deporting them for no reason is really aggravating many of us.
I'm sure it would be. Indeed, a major goal of the Islamofascists is to radicalize the sane Muslims thru just this process. Everytime the Islamofascists plan or carry out an attack, we must increase our measures to prevent further attacks. Then these measures piss off more Muslims. But what do you want us to do? We're in a situation where 18 guys were all it took to carry out Sept 11. We can't afford to let it or something worse happen again.

In my town, our Imam has been in jail for 2 years and the FBI is trying to find some evidence on him but they haven't found anything. Every time that he has a scheduled trial date, they always push it back. As you can understand, we are very aggravated with the situation, not to mention how frustrated and sad his wife and children must feel.
I'm sure that would be frustrating. I have to assume there's some reason they are holding the guy. But then, the government is pretty fucked up, so who knows.


You seem rather eager for this to happen. Why do you view Muslims in such a negative light? Is it fair for the American government to start treating Muslims as the Germans treated their Jews during World War 2?
First of all, I was speaking of how the US treated its Japanese citizens; not how Germany treated the Jews (extermination). However, if things really get out of hand, it could come to that.

Rest assured, I am not eager to see my country turned into a police state. Quite the contrary. We must do all we can to prevent another major attack because the US response would not be pretty.

If some portion of a group that comprises maybe 1% of the US population poses a deadly threat to the existance of the other 99%, what do you think will happen? At some point the philosophy becomes, "Kill them all, let God sort 'em out."

Also, how can you proclaim to love and follow Jesus (peace be to him) if you support putting innocent people behind bars?
Of course I support no such thing. But we must put an end to the threat posed by the Islamofascists to prevent the need for what you describe. Bush is fighting in Iraq and Afganistan to prevent this possible future, but getting almost no support from Islam (except Albania, gotta love Albania).

1. Oh man... Islamofascist is hurting your feelings? Go cry about it.

It's a loaded word which means absolutely nothing. It's a blanket statement to try to avert blame from some individuals to an entire religion and culture.

The Bush administration is quite found of these loaded words which don't mean anything.



2. Why do we view them in a negative light?.... Let's see... 9/11, terrorist attacks in general, the intolerance that they seem to have within the ME... gee, I wonder why.

If republicans and their supporters seem to have this attitude, they are only going to make more enemies in the Middle East. This is what I am referring to, why do so many conservative Americans have such a foolish short-sighted mentality.

To blame 9/11 on the entire Middle East is so simple.minded, I do not know where to start to refute this idea.

The Middle Eastern people are tired of the US because of FOREIGN INTERFERENCE in their affairs. The illegal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are clear proof of this. Has the Middle East gotten more Pro-American because of these wars?

It is also necessary to note that history didn't start on 9/11/2001, this foreign meddling has been going on for almost a hundred years.



1. You choose to be Muslim, we won't kill you in the US for converting to some other, less "persecuted" religion like they do in the ME. By you choosing when you have free choice it's your own goddamned fault for whatever happens; you are consenting.

I have never killed innocent civilians nor support the killing of innocents. What exactly are you talking about?



2. I suggest if you want all this to stop then convince your Jihadist buddies in the ME to stop blowing themselves up, otherwise you're just as guilty as anyone else you accuse.

It would be more effective if Americans like you put pressure on their government to deal in a more just manner with the Middle Eastern nations.

In this way, we would eliminate the actual cause of the problem, which is unfair American foreign policy which is an accomplice in the subjugation of our people.

It's a loaded word which means absolutely nothing. It's a blanket statement to try to avert blame from some individuals to an entire religion and culture.

The Bush administration is quite found of these loaded words which don't mean anything.



If republicans and their supporters seem to have this attitude, they are only going to make more enemies in the Middle East. This is what I am referring to, why do so many conservative Americans have such a foolish short-sighted mentality.

To blame 9/11 on the entire Middle East is so simple.minded, I do not know where to start to refute this idea.

The Middle Eastern people are tired of the US because of FOREIGN INTERFERENCE in their affairs. The illegal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are clear proof of this. Has the Middle East gotten more Pro-American because of these wars?

It is also necessary to note that history didn't start on 9/11/2001, this foreign meddling has been going on for almost a hundred years.



I have never killed innocent civilians nor support the killing of innocents. What exactly are you talking about?



It would be more effective if Americans like you put pressure on their government to deal in a more just manner with the Middle Eastern nations.

In this way, we would eliminate the actual cause of the problem, which is unfair American foreign policy which is an accomplice in the subjugation of our people.

god damn if only more people here were like you this would be a better place

It's a loaded word which means absolutely nothing. It's a blanket statement to try to avert blame from some individuals to an entire religion and culture.

The Bush administration is quite found of these loaded words which don't mean anything.



If republicans and their supporters seem to have this attitude, they are only going to make more enemies in the Middle East. This is what I am referring to, why do so many conservative Americans have such a foolish short-sighted mentality.

To blame 9/11 on the entire Middle East is so simple.minded, I do not know where to start to refute this idea.

The Middle Eastern people are tired of the US because of FOREIGN INTERFERENCE in their affairs. The illegal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are clear proof of this. Has the Middle East gotten more Pro-American because of these wars?

It is also necessary to note that history didn't start on 9/11/2001, this foreign meddling has been going on for almost a hundred years.



I have never killed innocent civilians nor support the killing of innocents. What exactly are you talking about?



It would be more effective if Americans like you put pressure on their government to deal in a more just manner with the Middle Eastern nations.

In this way, we would eliminate the actual cause of the problem, which is unfair American foreign policy which is an accomplice in the subjugation of our people.

1. It is human nature to tend to group people into groups, you asked why most people don't like Muslims, I told you. Sure, it may not be fair, but it's true and you'll just have to live with it.

2. I never implied that you had killed innocent civilians nor that you advocated it. I was stating that because you choose to be Muslim where you have the ability to choose which religion you follow, you volunteer yourself to all the stereotypes it brings with it. I then also went on to say that you're lucky you have a choice; in many of these 'just' nations that you seem to promote, if you converted to another religion you would be killed.

3. Deal with them in a just manner, eh? What you don't seem to get is that even if we were to back down now and go out, these psychos would still come to try and kill us. So, what's the incentive to get us to leave now and you continue attacking us, or we stay, eradicate the troublemakers then, yippee!, no more getting attacked?

Please try to answer #3, it should be interesting.

The Middle Eastern people are tired of the US because of FOREIGN INTERFERENCE in their affairs.
Common, USA are good guys, Arabs should like them, if they are not islamofascists, of course. USA such a powerful force for the good of Universe, everybody MUST like it, or at least spread buns in the respectful silence.

It's ironic that Orwell's "1984" was thought by the West as a book describing Soviets; and vice versa, Soviet propaganda claimed that "1984" is all about the Western realities (I would agree).

Seriously, I think there is gigantic experiment on the humanity is going on in the West. Humans are being transformed from "bees" into isolated and easily controlled/programmed "flies". As usually, USA is way ahead of the game.

To blame 9/11 on the entire Middle East is so simple.minded, I do not know where to start to refute this idea.Now that's absurd. No one is blaming the entire middle east. Afganistan was attacked because they were harboring Osama and served as HQ and training grounds for worldwide jihad. Iraq was unfinished business. In a post 9-11 world, it was deemed to dangerous to let him continue to hold power.

The illegal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are clear proof of this. Has the Middle East gotten more Pro-American because of these wars?Afghanistan illegal? Good luck making that case even to the wacko left. You can argue that with respect to Iraq, but I don't buy it.

And the middle east did become more pro-American for a while, when they thought we had the will to finish this. Libya voluntarily got rid of its WMD program, the elections in Lebanon, etc. It's only now that we are showing signs of weakness that trouble is increasing.

It is also necessary to note that history didn't start on 9/11/2001, this foreign meddling has been going on for almost a hundred years.It did for the US. We're not like the rest of the world. We don't remember shit that happened more than twenty years ago, unless it's really major shit. Even then, we learn about it, but don't really care.

Consider the Crusades. We know about them, they occured hundreds of years ago. Big deal. But the people of the middle east still seem pissed off about them. WTF?

Contrast that with our own civil war barely more than 100 years ago. Americans know about it, but don't give a shit. You don't see Northener's killing Southerner's over things that happened in the civil war. It's history. It's done.

It would be more effective if Americans like you put pressure on their government to deal in a more just manner with the Middle Eastern nations.

In this way, we would eliminate the actual cause of the problem, which is unfair American foreign policy which is an accomplice in the subjugation of our people.
I would never support bowing to the demands of terrorists. You want us to deal with the middle east more fairly? Pursue non-violent methods.

1. It is human nature to tend to group people into groups, you asked why most people don't like Muslims, I told you. Sure, it may not be fair, but it's true and you'll just have to live with it.

The problem is that this is out of ignorance, and it is easily solved through friendship and understanding with Muslims. Most Americans who hate Muslims are not acquainted with Muslims, so they don't know about us. It's my duty as a Muslim to defend my religion and the culture of my people, otherwise I could not consider myself worthy of being a Muslim.



2. I never implied that you had killed innocent civilians nor that you advocated it. I was stating that because you choose to be Muslim where you have the ability to choose which religion you follow, you volunteer yourself to all the stereotypes it brings with it. I then also went on to say that you're lucky you have a choice; in many of these 'just' nations that you seem to promote, if you converted to another religion you would be killed.

I don't volunteer myself to be viewed as negatively, instead I do everything in my power to perpetuate a fair and just view of Muslims. Many people are closed minded, but this is not my problem, i only know of what i believe and what is in my heart. I believe that all human beings have the capacity to do good and understand each other regardless of religion.



3. Deal with them in a just manner, eh? What you don't seem to get is that even if we were to back down now and go out, these psychos would still come to try and kill us. So, what's the incentive to get us to leave now and you continue attacking us, or we stay, eradicate the troublemakers then, yippee!, no more getting attacked?

Please try to answer #3, it should be interesting.

The problem is that you mistakenly attribute these current conflicts with various independent resistant groups to an all-encompassing international organization. This is a false conjecture invented by the Bush administration which plays on people's ignorance.

Knowledge is the main tool at the disposal of the American people to understand the Middle East.

My solution to America's problem is this:

Leave Afghanistan and Iraq into the hands of the Organization of Islamic Countries and allow them to handle the situation. Allow for monetary support of the incentive.

Make peace with Iran and Syria, and apologize for all the trouble which has been caused to them.

Develop a non-confrontational (or even better, isolationist) policy concerning the Middle East

Force Israel to allow a sovereign, independent Palestinian (with right of return) with the democratically elected leaders (whoever they are) to govern it

After the 2008 elections, to have the American president apologize on a televised statement for the injustices committed to Muslim Americans and Muslims in the Middle East and the promise that the US will pay for the reconstruction of the infrastructure of Afghanistan and Iraq

bout the only one that didn't was the regime in indonesia i think the ones in spain, germany, italy, and latin america all sprung forth from democracies.

Spain's came from a violent civil war in which the democrats fought valiantly against the fascist militants who won that war-- no peaceful handover. Italy's came from the Black Shirts of Mussolini marching on Rome and seizing the democratically elected government-- no peaceful handover. Argentina's several fascist dictatorships, Chile's, Columbia's, El Salvadore's, Cuba's and Brazil's all came from military junta's where the democratically government was thrown out by force. The only exception I can think of in Latin America is Venezuela's current leadership. The only "other" exceptions I can think of where the a dictatorship was peacefully elected is the current leadership in Russia and Hitler's rise to power. Iraq, Iran, Portugal, S. Korea, and Indonesia all experienced violent takeovers of the government by the military.


Common, USA are good guys, Arabs should like them, if they are not islamofascists, of course. USA such a powerful force for the good of Universe, everybody MUST like it, or at least spread buns in the respectful silence.

No. But we do have the right to put our own best interests first, and are the only superpower in history that doesn't utterly crush, destroy, colonize and strip-mine the society they concquer. If this were so, then Japan and Germany wouldn't be so goddamned rich as they are now. Would that we should be concquered by such warmongers!


Seriously, I think there is gigantic experiment on the humanity is going on in the West. Humans are being transformed from "bees" into isolated and easily controlled/programmed "flies". As usually, USA is way ahead of the game.

You are right-- it wasn't about communism. It was about technology of the west destroying the western notion of freedoms.

~String

My solution to America's problem is this:

Leave Afghanistan and Iraq into the hands of the Organization of Islamic Countries and allow them to handle the situation. Allow for monetary support of the incentive.

Make peace with Iran and Syria, and apologize for all the trouble which has been caused to them.

Develop a non-confrontational (or even better, isolationist) policy concerning the Middle East

Force Israel to allow a sovereign, independent Palestinian (with right of return) with the democratically elected leaders (whoever they are) to govern it

After the 2008 elections, to have the American president apologize on a televised statement for the injustices committed to Muslim Americans and Muslims in the Middle East and the promise that the US will pay for the reconstruction of the infrastructure of Afghanistan and Iraq
Maybe the president could kiss Osama's ass and convert to Islam while he's at it!

Maybe the president could kiss Osama's ass and convert to Islam while he's at it!

Such a God fearing guys like you and G.W. definitely could kiss asses of many Osamas so hundreds of thousands of lost souls could postpone there deaths and thus see the TRUE LIGHT OF LORD JESUS. So push that Satan away from you, he preaches Gospel of Hate, Jesus is Love, remember? You are not one of those inferior ragtags, you should remember.

Spain's came from a violent civil war in which the democrats fought valiantly against the fascist militants who won that war-- no peaceful handover. Italy's came from the Black Shirts of Mussolini marching on Rome and seizing the democratically elected government-- no peaceful handover. Argentina's several fascist dictatorships, Chile's, Columbia's, El Salvadore's, Cuba's and Brazil's all came from military junta's where the democratically government was thrown out by force. The only exception I can think of in Latin America is Venezuela's current leadership. The only "other" exceptions I can think of where the a dictatorship was peacefully elected is the current leadership in Russia and Hitler's rise to power. Iraq, Iran, Portugal, S. Korea, and Indonesia all experienced violent takeovers of the government by the military.



No. But we do have the right to put our own best interests first, and are the only superpower in history that doesn't utterly crush, destroy, colonize and strip-mine the society they concquer. If this were so, then Japan and Germany wouldn't be so goddamned rich as they are now. Would that we should be concquered by such warmongers!



You are right-- it wasn't about communism. It was about technology of the west destroying the western notion of freedoms.

~String
i never said they came peacefully i said they came from democracy almost every time a fascist regime comes to power they over throw a democracy and if i remember right it was the minority who wanted to not strip the hell out of the germans and japanese. most wanted to treat them like crap even in the us. but a few people knew of the benifits of not completely destrying a country. which of course has nothing to do fascism and everything to do with diplomacy.

it was the minority who wanted to not strip the hell out of the germans and japanese. most wanted to treat them like crap even in the us.

Japan and Italy were among the victors of WWI. Their loot was small though, big western dogs were tearing world's flash appart, leaving only crumbles to Japan (10,000 dead or so) and Italy (600,000 dead).

ah yes italy the only country to be on both sides in both world wars

if i remember right it was the minority who wanted to not strip the hell out of the germans and japanese.

Well, there were three deciding powers at that time: USA, UK, and the USSR. Only one of them wanted to obliterate the Japanese and Germans... the other two knew of the perils of oppressing a people-- it created warriors, like after WWI. The American public was overwhelmingly favorable to the Marshall Plan.


...most wanted to treat them like crap even in the us. but a few people knew of the benifits of not completely destrying a country. which of course has nothing to do fascism and everything to do with diplomacy.

Again, you would be wrong. Just because the American public was outraged and wanted vengence (a natural response), the US Government quite successfully sold the idea of reconstruction, and the American people overwhelmingly agreed by re-electing Roosavelt to his fourth term, and then re-electing Truman to his second.

~String

The problem is that you mistakenly attribute these current conflicts with various independent resistant groups to an all-encompassing international organization. This is a false conjecture invented by the Bush administration which plays on people's ignorance.

I don't see how that makes any difference. Since they're independent groups, does that make them not want to kill us? No. Fact is, pretty much, if not all of these groups are based out of the ME, so wouldn't that be the most obvious place to put an end to it?

I don't see how that makes any difference. Since they're independent groups, does that make them not want to kill us? No. Fact is, pretty much, if not all of these groups are based out of the ME, so wouldn't that be the most obvious place to put an end to it?

The are limited to the Middle East because they are native people whose only reason to fight is to resist the US invasion.

By invading sovereign Middle eastern nations and destroying their infrastructure, the Bush administration is responsible for the war which is going on. Troop surge and more force will only increase the dedication and resistance from the guerrilla fighters.

To classify them as terrorists is a distortion of reality, they have nothing to do with the mythological international terrorist organization.

The are limited to the Middle East because they are native people whose only reason to fight is to resist the US invasion.

By invading sovereign Middle eastern nations and destroying their infrastructure, the Bush administration is responsible for the war which is going on. Troop surge and more force will only increase the dedication and resistance from the guerrilla fighters.

To classify them as terrorists is a distortion of reality, they have nothing to do with the mythological international terrorist organization.


Terrorists do things like torture people to instill fear in others and kill civilians. We are fighting terrorists. We are also occupying some valuable real estate.

Terrorists do things like torture people to instill fear in others and kill civilians. We are fighting terrorists. We are also occupying some valuable real estate.

Something which the resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are not involved in.

Terrorists have no interest in a sovereign Muslim nation, therefore they are involved in subjugation of the people of the Middle East. They invaded two Muslim nations and claim to respect human rights, yet Abu Ghareeb and Guantamo is proof against them, along with many secret prisons which we know nothing about yet.

Something which the resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are not involved in.

Terrorists have no interest in a sovereign Muslim nation, therefore they are involved in subjugation of the people of the Middle East. They invaded two Muslim nations and claim to respect human rights, yet Abu Ghareeb and Guantamo is proof against them, along with many secret prisons which we know nothing about yet.


Nonsense. Guantanamo and Abu Ghareeb are places where terrorists are/were held and or interrogated to stop other terrorists from killing more people. Terrorists like the ones who crashed the planes on 911, like the ones who blow themselves up in Israel to take lots of women and children with them. You blow your credibility by defending people who everyone knows uses such tactics. If you recognize this and adjust you'll be more persuasive. Arguing that people like the grab ass low ranking soldiers in Abu Ghareeb are as bad as suicide bombers who kill women and children, or slowly cut off people's heads is asinine.

The are limited to the Middle East because they are native people whose only reason to fight is to resist the US invasion.

1. If that is so, then please, please explain 9/11 to me, because I guess I've got it all wrong.
2. I haven't seen any nations so far come up and say, 'Stop invading us!' And then the send troops to attack us. If what you say about all these groups being sovereign is true, then that wouldn't happen, now would it?
3. If these people weren't so dumb, they could see what we're doing, what we want, and the sooner we get it the sooner we leave. Instead, they persist in keeping us from our goal, which would even benefit the nation that it was being done in also. Do you think that the ME nations want terrorists residing within them? BTW, that 'thing' that we want are terrorists, if you couldn't tell. desi explained what terrorists are to you very well earlier, so there should be no misunderstanding.

Nonsense. Guantanamo and Abu Ghareeb are places where terrorists are/were held and or interrogated to stop other terrorists from killing more people.

There has not been any evidence brought by the US government against the prisoners in either Guantanamo or Abu Ghareeb. The terrorists in Washington want us to believe everything they say without any proof, but most people in the world are not that gullible.



Terrorists like the ones who crashed the planes on 911, like the ones who blow themselves up in Israel to take lots of women and children with them. You blow your credibility by defending people who everyone knows uses such tactics. If you recognize this and adjust you'll be more persuasive. Arguing that people like the grab ass low ranking soldiers in Abu Ghareeb are as bad as suicide bombers who kill women and children, or slowly cut off people's heads is asinine.

All people who imprison and humiliate innocent people are terrorists, this is not only limited to people with Muslim names.

Any person who supports the subjugation of a sovereign people and engages in furthering the US occupation of either Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be deemed as a civilian.

The resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were not engaged in terrorist activities such as 9/11. They are true heroes in defending their people from illegal occupation.


1. If that is so, then please, please explain 9/11 to me, because I guess I've got it all wrong.
2. I haven't seen any nations so far come up and say, 'Stop invading us!' And then the send troops to attack us. If what you say about all these groups being sovereign is true, then that wouldn't happen, now would it?

The resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan have the noble goal of bringing freedom to their people, and anyone that stands in the war of the freedom of these two nations is an enemy of justice. The US invaded these two countries on lies and brought about a genocide of thousands of innocent people. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have every right to resist.



3. If these people weren't so dumb, they could see what we're doing, what we want, and the sooner we get it the sooner we leave. Instead, they persist in keeping us from our goal, which would even benefit the nation that it was being done in also. Do you think that the ME nations want terrorists residing within them? BTW, that 'thing' that we want are terrorists, if you couldn't tell. desi explained what terrorists are to you very well earlier, so there should be no misunderstanding.

No, the US is seeking complete subjugation of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan through supporting puppet tyrants who employ mercenary armies funded by the US along with the US and NATO troops from countries whose governments have no honor nor decency.

The people of Iraq or Afghanistan did not attack anyone, it was the US that attacked them and butchered their people.

Having annihilated their indigenous native Indians, pacified Russia, installed tyrants in the Latin American nations and subdued the Far East, they seek to remove the last free and proud people, the brave people of the Middle Eastern nations and claim their oil.

But I have firm believe that the Middle East is where America will fall, as we will never surrender our ancestors' homeland to foreigners, even if they bring all their nukes and missiles. Till the last man, American troops in the Middle East will not know peace as long as they continue their illegal wars.

Nonsense. Guantanamo and Abu Ghareeb are places where terrorists are/were held and or interrogated to stop other terrorists from killing more people. Terrorists like the ones who crashed the planes on 911, like the ones who blow themselves up in Israel to take lots of women and children with them. You blow your credibility by defending people who everyone knows uses such tactics. If you recognize this and adjust you'll be more persuasive. Arguing that people like the grab ass low ranking soldiers in Abu Ghareeb are as bad as suicide bombers who kill women and children, or slowly cut off people's heads is asinine.

Surely if a potential terrorist attack was stopped Wouldn't we'd hear about it by the U.S biased Media ? Also, are you suggesting that everyone in those places are terrorists ?

No, the US is seeking complete subjugation of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan through supporting puppet tyrants who employ mercenary armies funded by the US along with the US and NATO troops from countries whose governments have no honor nor decency.

The people of Iraq or Afghanistan did not attack anyone, it was the US that attacked them and butchered their people.

Having annihilated their indigenous native Indians, pacified Russia, installed tyrants in the Latin American nations and subdued the Far East, they seek to remove the last free and proud people, the brave people of the Middle Eastern nations and claim their oil.

But I have firm believe that the Middle East is where America will fall, as we will never surrender our ancestors' homeland to foreigners, even if they bring all their nukes and missiles. Till the last man, American troops in the Middle East will not know peace as long as they continue their illegal wars.

1. No, we want to stop being attacked on our own soil. Would this whole thing have started if the ME retards had never hijacked five planes in an attempt to slaughter thousands of completely innocent US citizens? Or are they guilty because they live in the US? If so, that goes against your own statements regarding how the people in the ME aren't responsible for these terrorists. Also, it seems to go against your views of pointless slaughter. Did these people do anything to you?
2. No, we seek to remove the people who exist solely to kill us, which seems to be, according to you, all of the ME.
3. We don't want your fucking sandbox of a homeland!!! You can keep it for all we care!!! The reason we are there is [refer to point #2].
4. Since when are wars illegal? Last time I checked, wars had no rules except survive.

Oh yeah, I forgot one point:

5. How come you refuse to see all of your people that are being killed by your own people blowing themselves up?! Because it's noble?

Would this whole thing have started if the ME retards had never hijacked five planes in an attempt to slaughter thousands of completely innocent US citizens? Yes. This "whole thing" started long before that.


It did for the US. We're not like the rest of the world. We don't remember shit that happened more than twenty years ago, unless it's really major shit. Even then, we learn about it, but don't really care. You are now proud of the fact that you don't know what you are doing, claiming that ignorance of what you have done is sufficient excuse for having done it, and demanding that those you have wronged simply get over it and let you do more. Do you think that guaranteeing to forget about it in the future is sufficient justification for what you are doing now?

No. But we do have the right to put our own best interests first, and are the only superpower in history that doesn't utterly crush, destroy, colonize and strip-mine the society they concquer The Mongol Horde and the Roman Empire were similarly generous. Many of their conquered lands enjoyed unprecedented prosperity under their conquerer's thumb. Or compare Cuba with Haiti.

And I'm a bit flummoxed by a contention that the recent behavior of the US is an example of putting "our own interests first". Whose interests would those be ?

Yes. This "whole thing" started long before that.

The 'whole thing' I was referring to was the US going into Iraq.

The 'whole thing' I was referring to was the US going into Iraq. That started long before 9/11, too.

Oh really? Do you think that the US would have gone to Iraq in 2003 if we had not been attacked on 9/11?

BTW: The Gulf War was a different story, so if you're suggesting that in your previous comments then you aren't understanding me.

Oh really? Do you think that the US would have gone to Iraq in 2003 if we had not been attacked on 9/11?

BTW: The Gulf War was a different story, so if you're suggesting that in your previous comments then you aren't understanding me.

yes

Then please, explain to me how that would have happened.

1. No, we want to stop being attacked on our own soil. Would this whole thing have started if the ME retards had never hijacked five planes in an attempt to slaughter thousands of completely innocent US citizens? Or are they guilty because they live in the US? If so, that goes against your own statements regarding how the people in the ME aren't responsible for these terrorists. Also, it seems to go against your views of pointless slaughter. Did these people do anything to you?

Are the people of the US responsible for every murderer, rapist, or criminal in their nations?

Generalizing blame from five people to an entire civilization is ridiculous?

To invade two sovereign countries with no evidence or diplomacy is also ridiculous.

If America wants to initiate a war with a country of the Middle East, they need to present clear and infallible evidence to all the critics and media sources in that region, you cannot expect us to take America's word for it as they have deceived and lied to us many times before.

The US and the other Western nations have been holding numerous murderers and terrorists in their custody as well, they have no right to assume the moral high ground. Examples: the Ahmad Shah Pahlavi of Iran, Altaf Hussein of MQM terrorist outfit.



2. No, we seek to remove the people who exist solely to kill us, which seems to be, according to you, all of the ME.

You cannot expect to invade two sovereign countries on lies and expect no resistance. The people of the Middle East are a proud and free people, the one thing which we hate the most is foreigners occupying and usurping our land.



3. We don't want your fucking sandbox of a homeland!!! You can keep it for all we care!!! The reason we are there is [refer to point #2].

This sandbox is the homeland of your father Abraham and Jesus and all the prophets (peace be to them). If you have this attitude about our land and civilization, how can you expect that we will deal justly with each other?

Diplomacy is the only answer, it is not advisable to initiate war and wholesale slaughter on the people of the Middle East. As has been shown by history, our determination and resourcefulness will always be the factors which will allow us to fight off invaders from our land.



4. Since when are wars illegal? Last time I checked, wars had no rules except survive.

Wars started on lies and duplicity are illegal and unjust. Your darwinist mentality has no room in the civilized world. If the US government continues its current disregard for human rights and justice, this will be the end of it.

Oh really? Do you think that the US would have gone to Iraq in 2003 if we had not been attacked on 9/11? Maybe not 2003. Maybe 2004 or 2002 - or, hey, 2005 after the elections. Some kind of excuse would have come along.

They started looking for excuses to invade Iraq in November of 2000. The matter got serious in 2002, when Saddam's move to the petroEuro started to look feasible and the UN guys still hadn't found any dangerous weaponry.

BTW: The Gulf War was a different story, so if you're suggesting that in your previous comments then you aren't understanding me. If you think the Gulf War was in a different story you aren't understanding the Iraq invasion.

its been out there that the bush admin was looking to go into iraq day one. 9/11 just gave them the excuse but they wanted to go in before that. thats why were heard all the bs intel about the link between saddam and alquadia so they could get their war. and before you say i'm unamerican or don't support the troops i was for the aphgan invasion because we went after those who attacked us which we are now pretty much ignoring for iraq

Are the people of the US responsible for every murderer, rapist, or criminal in their nations?

No, but I can't see the relevance to the conversation.


Generalizing blame from five people to an entire civilization is ridiculous?

Well, I suppose I could answer that question as soon as you answer this question: Did you think that 9/11 was warranted?

The US and the other Western nations have been holding numerous murderers and terrorists in their custody as well, they have no right to assume the moral high ground. Examples: the Ahmad Shah Pahlavi of Iran, Altaf Hussein of MQM terrorist outfit.

Right there you said that we were holding terrorists and murderers... is that wrong of us?


This sandbox is the homeland of your father Abraham and Jesus and all the prophets (peace be to them). If you have this attitude about our land and civilization, how can you expect that we will deal justly with each other?

Diplomacy is the only answer, it is not advisable to initiate war and wholesale slaughter on the people of the Middle East. As has been shown by history, our determination and resourcefulness will always be the factors which will allow us to fight off invaders from our land.

Ah yes, our wise, powerful, and apparently starved to the point of hallucination, fathers. The only impressions that I have of your land and people are a direct result of what you and your people did. Only blame yourselves.

I may be coming off as an ass here, but let me explain what I think to you. I would really like there not to be a 'war' but, the way I see it, it's inevitable. The reason it's inevitable is because you guys insist on inhibiting our efforts and killing our people. Do you guys not think that we are as proud and free as you are? Do you guys just not get that the less you attack us the less time we have to spend there? You guys seem to want us here longer just so that you can kill us. Unfortunately, at the rate it's going your own suicide bombers will wipe out your entire population before they can wipe out our armed forces. How good would that be for all the people that have already killed themselves, 'Yay! We killed ourselves so that other people could do the same thing and completely wipe out our people!!!' I'm sure they'd be thrilled. And, in the end, the US would control the area because, hey, no ones living here anymore! To me it seems like you guys just want to keep us here as long as you can... what you're doing is just overall counter-productive... Oh well, I'm sure we won't see eye-to-eye, but at least I tried...

No, but I can't see the relevance to the conversation.

Over-generalization and demonization of a whole race of people.



Well, I suppose I could answer that question as soon as you answer this question: Did you think that 9/11 was warranted?

I never support the killing of innocent people, no matter who they are.

To think that you would believe that I support this is proof of just how gullible you are to believe that all Muslims or Middle Eastern people are responsible for one tiny group.



Right there you said that we were holding terrorists and murderers... is that wrong of us?

Yes, it is.



I may be coming off as an ass here, but let me explain what I think to you. I would really like there not to be a 'war' but, the way I see it, it's inevitable. The reason it's inevitable is because you guys insist on inhibiting our efforts and killing our people.

Please first define who you mean by 'you.' We are only against you seizing control of Afghanistan and Iraq illegally. Most of the Middle Eastern people would agree to settle the issue diplomatically, but seems the US seems it doesn't have to convince anyone of anything and does as they please, hence the damage has been done, don't expect cooperation anymore.



Do you guys not think that we are as proud and free as you are? Do you guys just not get that the less you attack us the less time we have to spend there? You guys seem to want us here longer just so that you can kill us.

First of all, the freedom fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq have every right to resist occupation by a foreign power. The US chose to settle this issue militarily without support from the people of the Middle East, therefore they should expect resistance as they felt it unnecessary to convince the inhabitants why they are there.



Unfortunately, at the rate it's going your own suicide bombers will wipe out your entire population before they can wipe out our armed forces. How good would that be for all the people that have already killed themselves, 'Yay! We killed ourselves so that other people could do the same thing and completely wipe out our people!!!' I'm sure they'd be thrilled. And, in the end, the US would control the area because, hey, no ones living here anymore! To me it seems like you guys just want to keep us here as long as you can... what you're doing is just overall counter-productive... Oh well, I'm sure we won't see eye-to-eye, but at least I tried...

First define 'we'. In war, I believe suicide bombing is acceptable only if against enemy soldiers (such as kamikaze attacks by Japanese in WW2). I believe suicide bombing against civilians is wrong. Those doing the bombings are not related to the Iraqi resistance. But the US likes to lump all the people together and punish all the people, civilians, women, children, innocents, for the crimes of a few. This is why the US can never win the hearts of anyone, and this is also why the US will collapse in Afghanistan and Iraq, and where ever they attack next.

The resistance warriors have heart and are brave, to resist the strongest military hiding in caves and forests with only one gun and bag of supplies. It takes heart to be a guerrilla, heart which the cowardly US troops do not have.

For three obvious examples: search and seizure with warrant only, habeus corpus, the establishment of the power to declare war in Congress, now exist only as habits if at all: they are no longer enforceable in fact.

We have a federal administration that has set up a warrantless wiretapping and surveillance operation, "disappeared" people to secret jails, obtained confession by torture and guilt by entrapment, and done this not in secret and clandestinely so as to avoid prosecution and disgrace but openly and in full knowledge of the public.

Add posse comitatus, judicial independence, financial probity, executive accountability to Congress, and documented agency accountability to the oversight bodies established, to the list of what has been lost recently.

Are these unimportant or minor features of the US Constitution, think you?

In order for me to answer your question, I have to accept your premise, which I do not. What you've written is nothing more than the typical laundry-list of liberal ills with the Bush administration, and even more typically, you've failed to support them with any specific examples.

You speak of the disappearance of habeus corpus? I provided an example where the judicial system stood up to Bush's desire and protected the accused, something I hasten to point out that the court could never have done if America really were "fascist" state so many of this site's visitors seem to think it is. There are little dozens of other decisions and rulings during the Bush administration, decisions and rulings I'm almost certain you're familiar with, as the news media trumpets them as "defeats" of the president's agenda whenever they occur.

As for the power to declare war, Congress ceded most of that ground in the late 1940s by my reckoning. Or didn't you know that the Korean War was never voted on by Congress, nor any of the nation's military actions that followed that century. The last time the US declared war on anyone was when it voted to retaliate against imperialist Japan. But setting history aside for a moment, it's obvious the true target of that jab is the current Iraq debacle, a conflict you seem to forget was authorized by Congress with a vote and with every other subsequent appropriations vote it takes, though some of the Democrats leadership would have you believe otherwise...

I will not defend the abuses of warrants, because I haven't the stomach, but I do say that talking grandly of "disappearing" people into secret jails and "torture" strikes me as something done more for rhetorical effect than any sense of intellectual honestly. Who is being disappeared? A few dozen high-level terrorists caught in other nations? I'm not sure what our Constitution has to say about that, because I think it likely it says nothing about it at all. Torture? I assume you're not speaking of the miscreant acts of a few bored soldiers and are focusing on the CIA and rendition, a practice revived by Bill Clinton that has been engaged in off and on for years? If you want to make an argument against such behavior, by all means, do so. But do not pretend it was invented by an inept Republican president out of some sense of fascist longing. That would be a lie.

As for your other unspecific grievances, what's stopping the Congress from investigating the Bush administration? Nothing...

I never support the killing of innocent people, no matter who they are.

To think that you would believe that I support this is proof of just how gullible you are to believe that all Muslims or Middle Eastern people are responsible for one tiny group.

I never said nor implied that you did, I merely asked a question. Unfortunately, I forgot where I was going with that question... I'll remember eventually.


Yes, it is.

So it is illegal to hold MURDERERS... okay, I see that you really are coming from the ME.


Please first define who you mean by 'you.' We are only against you seizing control of Afghanistan and Iraq illegally. Most of the Middle Eastern people would agree to settle the issue diplomatically, but seems the US seems it doesn't have to convince anyone of anything and does as they please, hence the damage has been done, don't expect cooperation anymore.

I meant you as in you, the one reading this right now, DiamondHearts.


First of all, the freedom fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq have every right to resist occupation by a foreign power. The US chose to settle this issue militarily without support from the people of the Middle East, therefore they should expect resistance as they felt it unnecessary to convince the inhabitants why they are there.

They know why we're there. Don't play dumb.


First define 'we'. In war, I believe suicide bombing is acceptable only if against enemy soldiers (such as kamikaze attacks by Japanese in WW2). I believe suicide bombing against civilians is wrong. Those doing the bombings are not related to the Iraqi resistance. But the US likes to lump all the people together and punish all the people, civilians, women, children, innocents, for the crimes of a few. This is why the US can never win the hearts of anyone, and this is also why the US will collapse in Afghanistan and Iraq, and where ever they attack next.

We as in the people doing the suicide bombings. So from that I take that you do not support the suicide bombers? Also, I have never even heard of any soldiers actually being shot, only suicide bombed. What is this apparently insignificant resistance you speak of?


The resistance warriors have heart and are brave, to resist the strongest military hiding in caves and forests with only one gun and bag of supplies. It takes heart to be a guerrilla, heart which the cowardly US troops do not have.

Our soldiers don't have courage and heart. Wow, and your telling me that we can't negotiate only because of our attitude. That's some nice attitude you have yourself. Our soldiers go half way around the world to risk their lives. They're all volunteers. Sure, they don't have courage (please note the obvious sarcasm). You want me to tell you what's cowardly? Running into a bunch of innocent people with a bomb strapped to your chest, praying to Allah that you kill as many US soldiers as possible and that the innocents you kill will forgive you. That, my friend, is cowardly.


One final question: If we said today: 'If you turn over all the terrorists in all the cells today, then we'll go home', would you do it? Is that diplomatic enough for you? Because we won't settle for less, I can tell you that right now.

We as in the people doing the suicide bombings. So from that I take that you do not support the suicide bombers? Also, I have never even heard of any soldiers actually being shot, only suicide bombed. What is this apparently insignificant resistance you speak of?

The US government hides the fact that Iraqi resistance fighters with only guns and ammunition have held the US in check throughout much of Iraq for four years. The US government doesn't want its supporters to panic, to think that a few ragtag bands of guerrillas can fight on even footing with the great US military with all its technology.



Our soldiers don't have courage and heart. Wow, and your telling me that we can't negotiate only because of our attitude. That's some nice attitude you have yourself. Our soldiers go half way around the world to risk their lives. They're all volunteers. Sure, they don't have courage (please note the obvious sarcasm). You want me to tell you what's cowardly? Running into a bunch of innocent people with a bomb strapped to your chest, praying to Allah that you kill as many US soldiers as possible and that the innocents you kill will forgive you. That, my friend, is cowardly.

The US colonizing power is funded by recruits who not used to the ravages of war, they have no heart. Haven't you read of the US soldiers being tried for shooting on crowded civilian areas, raping Iraqi women, and even more grotesque Iraqi men. This is a devil army doing the devil's bidding. They have no moral high ground.



One final question: If we said today: 'If you turn over all the terrorists in all the cells today, then we'll go home', would you do it? Is that diplomatic enough for you? Because we won't settle for less, I can tell you that right now.

We expect to receive infallible evidence linking the individuals to criminal activity for each case against any Middle Easterner. We expect this evidence to go to all the heads of government and media stations throughout the world, but especially in the Middle East.

We also expect the US to charge each and every US soldier involved in the murder or dishonor of any civilian with capital punishment.

To try Bush and his administration in a public televised court case before all the people of the world, and if found guilty of lies, treason, and crimes against humanity to be sentenced to death.

Torture? I assume you're not speaking of the miscreant acts of a few bored soldiers No. Although I am aware that the policies of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and Bagram and Bucca and several others have been dismissed as such by the willfully ignorant and ethically bankrupt. I am speaking of the interrogation policy changes that motivated the sitting President to request of his staff documentation covering his ass for violations of the Geneva Convention, violations of a signed treaty of the US that he is bound by law - no longer enforeceable, apparently - to obey. "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques, as US policy manuals called it, in language borrowed (deliberately? ) from the Gestapo policy manuals for interrogation of Norwegian partisans.

And although not all of this is new, some of it is: and my point was that it is now not only new and expanded but open - Gitmo is not secret, the torture has been discovered, what formerly had to be concealed can now be done officially and in public, or with transparent denials of technical guilt. That is the point I made - we have taken a long stride down a bad road, recently.

You speak of the disappearance of habeus corpus? I provided an example where the judicial system stood up to Bush's desire and protected the accused, something I hasten to point out that the court could never have done if America really were "fascist" state so many of this site's visitors seem to think it is. I don't think anyone here has claimed the fascist state our current trends aim toward is here already. There are still, as I specifically mentioned, habits of decent government ingrained in our institutions. They will not disappear overnight. But as of now and increasingly they no longer have the solid backing of Constitutional principle or Federal obedience. Habeus corpus has been suspended, in the US, for cases of "terrorism". If you know what habeus corpus is, you will recognize that once suspended for any reason in any circumstance it is no longer reliably enforceable at all until formally and firmly restored.

As for the power to declare war, Congress ceded most of that ground in the late 1940s by my reckoning.
- - -
But setting history aside for a moment, it's obvious the true target of that jab is the current Iraq debacle, a conflict you seem to forget was authorized by Congress with a vote and with every other subsequent appropriations vote it takes, You do, indeed, set history aside to make such statements. And the US slide toward fascism did indeed start many years ago. But this latest Iraq scam is a new low, eh? Certainly the debate in Congress was not about authorizing war, and those who recognized that they were in fact authorizing Presidential whims for war were opposed to the resolution - and widely ridiculed for exaggerating the situation. The rest took W's word - always a mistake.

Also, I have never even heard of any soldiers actually being shot, only suicide bombed. What is this apparently insignificant resistance you speak of? ? US soldiers are not suicide bombed very often. Snipers and IEDs get them.

Also , the congress were misinformed about Iraq, their failing was basically not standing up for a tougher investigation before they commit troops to Iraq.

is it me or has this thread wandered from the bush adminastration resembling a fascist regime to how big of evil assholes the bushies are?

Well, since the original premise was nothing but nonsense, it is not so wild to imagine that the tread would wander off course.

~String

Current America while a bit ambiguous, will definitely involve President or Governor Bush in some way or form.

is it me or has this thread wandered from the bush adminastration resembling a fascist regime to how big of evil assholes the bushies are? It isn't "wandering", it's being jerked around by people questioning obvious facts and impugning motives to derail the argument.

The last ten posts have been directly on topic, if you take Diamondheart's questioning of his enemy's courage and "heart" to illustrate by mirroring the fascist approach to war and politics. Admittedly that's a stretch.


As for your other unspecific grievances, what's stopping the Congress from investigating the Bush administration? That almost sounds like a rhetorical question, as if you really believed that nothing has been impeding the Congressional investigations several members of Congress have been attempting for years now.

The stonewalling, loss and destruction and falsification of documents, lying, bureaucratic runaround, legal obfuscation, propaganda campaigns, threats and retaliations, and general concerted efforts at blocking investigation, have been frequent news and common knowledge for a long time. Now that the bills can get out of committee we've seen a major increase in headlines, the past six months, but this battle started years ago.

The nature of those efforts, and the "irregularities" they protect, is some of the strongest evidence of specifically fascist ideology behind this administration's actions.

Not to mention all the other signs of facism as listed here :http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

The stonewalling, loss and destruction and falsification of documents, lying, bureaucratic runaround, legal obfuscation, propaganda campaigns, threats and retaliations, and general concerted efforts at blocking investigation, have been frequent news and common knowledge for a long time. Now that the bills can get out of committee we've seen a major increase in headlines, the past six months, but this battle started years ago.

My GOD... you MUST be talking about Whitewater... right?!

~String

Not to mention all the other signs of facism (sic) as listed here :http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Hi Challenger,

It looks to me like parts of Europe could pontentially be more fascist.

To add to that, we humans have allways been susceptible.

The US government hides the fact that Iraqi resistance fighters with only guns and ammunition have held the US in check throughout much of Iraq for four years. The US government doesn't want its supporters to panic, to think that a few ragtag bands of guerrillas can fight on even footing with the great US military with all its technology.
It's no secret that native, well supplied insurgencies have been able to defeat superpowers most of the time.




The US colonizing power is funded by recruits who not used to the ravages of war, they have no heart. Haven't you read of the US soldiers being tried for shooting on crowded civilian areas, raping Iraqi women, and even more grotesque Iraqi men. This is a devil army doing the devil's bidding. They have no moral high ground.
They are not used to warfare, that might be true, and that makes them more dangerous? People used to war are the ones that lose compassion. Believe me, Iraqi insurgents are capable of the most extreme atrocities, and indeed are proud of it.




We expect to receive infallible evidence linking the individuals to criminal activity for each case against any Middle Easterner. We expect this evidence to go to all the heads of government and media stations throughout the world, but especially in the Middle East.
I would like that too.


We also expect the US to charge each and every US soldier involved in the murder or dishonor of any civilian with capital punishment.
I don't believe in capital punishment.


To try Bush and his administration in a public televised court case before all the people of the world, and if found guilty of lies, treason, and crimes against humanity to be sentenced to death.
That will never happen, although he may be impeached for some lesser thing, and the death penalty is itself a crime against humanity.

Well, since the original premise was nothing but nonsense, it is not so wild to imagine that the tread would wander off course.

~String

considering i based my premise off the research article of a respected history professer who concentrated on fascist regimes where do you get off on calling nonsense or do you think you understand better than a guy who spent years studing fascism on what constitutes fascism. oh do tell

The US government hides the fact that Iraqi resistance fighters with only guns and ammunition have held the US in check throughout much of Iraq for four years. The US government doesn't want its supporters to panic, to think that a few ragtag bands of guerrillas can fight on even footing with the great US military with all its technology.

If I actually were able to find any information regarding a few bands holding back the US, I certainly would not panic. Why do you think we would?


The US colonizing power is funded by recruits who not used to the ravages of war, they have no heart. Haven't you read of the US soldiers being tried for shooting on crowded civilian areas, raping Iraqi women, and even more grotesque Iraqi men. This is a devil army doing the devil's bidding. They have no moral high ground.

The only time US soldiers shoot civilians is when the civilians do not comply to orders that could directly result in the harm of the soldiers. i.e. There was one shooting of civilians when the civilians refused to stop interfering with the soldiers and the civilians pretended like they were about to shoot the soldiers. They weren't pretending like kids would, just holding their finger up; they were trying to make it seem like they were concealing weapons and they were going to kill the soldiers. Hmmm, which comes first, your people or my soldiers?


We expect to receive infallible evidence linking the individuals to criminal activity for each case against any Middle Easterner. We expect this evidence to go to all the heads of government and media stations throughout the world, but especially in the Middle East.

We also expect the US to charge each and every US soldier involved in the murder or dishonor of any civilian with capital punishment.

Well thank you for that, but unfortunately you failed to answer my question; you have a knack of doing that, don't you?


To try Bush and his administration in a public televised court case before all the people of the world, and if found guilty of lies, treason, and crimes against humanity to be sentenced to death.

We went in on information that was apparently not correct, but suggesting that Bush went in knowing that Saddam didn't have WMDs is just dumb; who didn't think he had them? As to treason? How did he commit treason, please explain. Crimes against humanity... wow, you're one to be talking. What about all the killing of American citizens on US soil, do you think that we should punish them too? If not, then shut up right now, because you clearly are too into supporting your cause blindly that you cannot be reasonable anymore.

My GOD... you MUST be talking about Whitewater... right?! Congress had no trouble investigating Whitewater - the Republicans who controlled Congress (not with a shaky one vote occasional majority, either), spent tens of millions of dollars, hired a special prosecutor, subpeonaed testimony under oath, spent years digging, enlisted various police, etc etc etc. They just didn't find much.

Not a single one of the several dozen W scandals has been investigated with anything like that kind of effort- because all such attempts have been blocked, quite openly and even flagrantly. And these would be scandals of the sitting administration, involving matters of grave national import, not past matters of, say, insider trading in oil stocks, or eminent domain abuse in stadium deals, years old.

If I actually were able to find any information regarding a few bands holding back the US, I certainly would not panic. Why do you think we would?

I suggest you look at Arabic news stations and Middle Eastern media for this information, the US media is heavily biased and censored by the US government.



The only time US soldiers shoot civilians is when the civilians do not comply to orders that could directly result in the harm of the soldiers. i.e. There was one shooting of civilians when the civilians refused to stop interfering with the soldiers and the civilians pretended like they were about to shoot the soldiers. They weren't pretending like kids would, just holding their finger up; they were trying to make it seem like they were concealing weapons and they were going to kill the soldiers. Hmmm, which comes first, your people or my soldiers?

This is exactly the kind of misinformation I am referring to. US soldiers are shot at from a random direction, so they start to shoot anyone in sight out of fear of getting killed, they shoot a group of crowded civilians (women, children, elderly) and then make an excuse that the terrorists were the crowd of civilians.

In all recent wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the US soldiers have been accused of atrocious human rights violations. By no suprise, this angers the people of the Middle East the most and creates great hostility among the natives.

Abu Ghareeb, Guantanamo, and Bagram are one of the worst places of human rights abuses on the planet. Their funded puppet regimes of Iraq (Maliki) and in Afghanistan (Karzai) are nothing but traitors and gangsters who are known to their people as the most tyrannical and wicked of all the governments of the Middle East. The US does not have any right to preach morality to know one.




We went in on information that was apparently not correct, but suggesting that Bush went in knowing that Saddam didn't have WMDs is just dumb; who didn't think he had them? As to treason? How did he commit treason, please explain.

I would prefer to use the words obviously incorrect information. All the Middle Eastern governments and Muslim Americans told the US government that there is no cause against Iraq. Even more laughable, the US felt it not necessary to provide definitive proof to the UN or anyone, even their own President just took the words of some officials (among them Paul Wolfowitz, a known Zionist and pro-Israel politician).

So, it becomes necessary to study the case in depth, so the trigger happy Bush administration doesn't commit this same mistake twice.

Now, who in the Middle East supported the Iraq war? Only Israel, which also convinced the US that Saddam Hussein was a threat , even though we was not. Ten years of bombing and sanctions of food, medicine, water had turned Iraq from the strongest and modern Arab nation to a humanitarian disaster. Even Iran, who had every reason to be pro-Iraq war as Saddam had invaded their country in the past (with support from the US) did not support the current war. This war was a blessing to Israel, and a disaster for the Arabs. This has been why the Arabs and Muslims of the world have been growing more anti-American every year, because of many events like these.

So we ask, who benefited from the Iraq war? Did the American people? No. The Arabs? No.

The only people who benefited are the oil companies who stole Iraq's oil, mercenary companies hired by the US, the US army who recieved billions of dollars of funds and hence more power, the Israeli lobby and Israel.



Crimes against humanity... wow, you're one to be talking. What about all the killing of American citizens on US soil, do you think that we should punish them too? If not, then shut up right now, because you clearly are too into supporting your cause blindly that you cannot be reasonable anymore.

I have already stated that 9/11 should be classified as a terror attack, if we take the position that a tiny band of terrorists committed it, because it would be an unjust retaliation against the wrong individuals (oblivious civilians). However, I still hold that the Pentagon attack cannot be classified as a terrorist attack as it is a military building, if we hold this view.

But I don't believe this story because it doesn't add up. First, how is it possible for a jetliner to be piloted from such a long distance away from its destination to fry so freely, on American airspace completed blinded from National security, into a civilian building in the center of Manhattan? If we hold that the WTC building is made of steel rods, heat generated by the jet fuel even inside this Boeing 767 isn't enough to melt the rods. The only way to melt these rods would have to come from another source inside the building.

Check this video for more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzH2epcFk1U

Now about accountability, Why did the man who Washington claims was responsible for the attacks repeatedly deny the charges in all his statements, except the one found by the US military (not given to Middle Eastern media) and made public in December 2001? http://whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

If we take this evidence, can it be that the whole 9/11 tragedy was staged by the US government (just as Hitler did with the burning of the Reichstag building) to justify military incursions into sovereign Muslim nations starting with one of the poorest nations in the world, Afghanistan, (creating a pretext) followed by the invasion of Iraq linking Saddam Hussein to Alqaeda and fake WMDs, and finally in military action against Lebanon, Syria (Arab Nationalist nations and an enemy of Israel), Iran, and Pakistan, eliminating three of the strongest Muslim nations militarily (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan). Thus making the Middle East easy to colonize and establishing permanent bases in the oil rich North-Western Arabian-Persian regions securing oil resources for more than a hundred years.

If we take this evidence, can it be that the whole 9/11 tragedy was staged by the US government Your evidence is garbage, and there is no reason to "take" it. Steel rods do not have to be melted to collapse a steel building, for example. And even with better evidence, the whole scene is implausible: The US government does not ahve much access to suicide pilots, especially in such a bogus cause, nor does it have to come up with such goofy and elaborate schemes to justify war, and even this administration could have done better than four planes full of AQ Saudis to justify an attack on Iraq - had it been worked out in advance.

considering i based my premise off the research article of a respected history professer who concentrated on fascist regimes where do you get off on calling nonsense or do you think you understand better than a guy who spent years studing fascism on what constitutes fascism. oh do tell

Yeah, you posted a diatribe by a renowned leftist, who has a history of publishing leftist propiganda; AND who (it just sho happens) has a doctorate that is specious at best.


Congress had no trouble investigating Whitewater - the Republicans who controlled Congress (not with a shaky one vote occasional majority, either), spent tens of millions of dollars, hired a special prosecutor, subpeonaed testimony under oath, spent years digging, enlisted various police, etc etc etc. They just didn't find much.

Not a single one of the several dozen W scandals has been investigated with anything like that kind of effort- because all such attempts have been blocked, quite openly and even flagrantly. And these would be scandals of the sitting administration, involving matters of grave national import, not past matters of, say, insider trading in oil stocks, or eminent domain abuse in stadium deals, years old.

Yeah... because the Clinton Admin wasn't known for having shread and/or lost vital documents (I take it you don't remember the scandal involving Hillary who just so happened to have "lost" documents in the Whitehouse attic). There may be a good reason why the Republicans and (now) the Democrats have not investigated Bush-- there's nothing to investigate... much to the disappointment of flailing liberals.

~String

Your evidence is garbage, and there is no reason to "take" it. Steel rods do not have to be melted to collapse a steel building, for example. And even with better evidence, the whole scene is implausible: The US government does not ahve much access to suicide pilots, especially in such a bogus cause, nor does it have to come up with such goofy and elaborate schemes to justify war, and even this administration could have done better than four planes full of AQ Saudis to justify an attack on Iraq - had it been worked out in advance.

In the end, its only your word (supplied by US gov and media) against mine (with the evidence I have provided). Please take a look at the evidence I provided and investigate the matter.

I know that this might come as a shock, but who expected the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This event, 9/11, was planned (we do not know by who exactly), but with complicity from the US government. Otherwise it would be unlikely for the US to be in the Middle east, and at such an opportune time when oil prices are rising.

I'm sure many people don't agree with me, but this is my belief on the matter.

censored by the US government.

No, it's not, however, what it is censored by are the owners of these news corporations.


This is exactly the kind of misinformation I am referring to. US soldiers are shot at from a random direction, so they start to shoot anyone in sight out of fear of getting killed, they shoot a group of crowded civilians (women, children, elderly) and then make an excuse that the terrorists were the crowd of civilians.

Well you should take it as a complement then; you've done such a good job being cowards and hiding yourselves that we have to resort to the spray and pray tactic. You preach honor, yet how honorable is it to have to use a crowd of civilians to stay alive?


In all recent wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the US soldiers have been accused of atrocious human rights violations. By no suprise, this angers the people of the Middle East the most and creates great hostility among the natives.

Accused being the key word; also, the only people who accuse are those who just want to see our soldiers suffer because of bogus claims.


Abu Ghareeb, Guantanamo, and Bagram are one of the worst places of human rights abuses on the planet. Their funded puppet regimes of Iraq (Maliki) and in Afghanistan (Karzai) are nothing but traitors and gangsters who are known to their people as the most tyrannical and wicked of all the governments of the Middle East.

AFAIK, the Iraqi government was elected by the people; blame yourselves if you don't like it.


The US does not have any right to preach morality to know one.

And neither do you, so why don't you just stop?


So, it becomes necessary to study the case in depth, so the trigger happy Bush administration doesn't commit this same mistake twice.

The administration only acts if provoked, so stop poking the hornets nest.


Now, who in the Middle East supported the Iraq war? Only Israel, which also convinced the US that Saddam Hussein was a threat , even though we was not.

Huh? The dude who invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War? How could we possibly denounce him as a threat?


Ten years of bombing and sanctions of food, medicine, water had turned Iraq from the strongest and modern Arab nation to a humanitarian disaster.

Because their own actions warranted it. What do you think we do? Pick a random country and go, 'Hey, let's starve that SOB!'?


Even Iran, who had every reason to be pro-Iraq war as Saddam had invaded their country in the past (with support from the US) did not support the current war.

Yeah, the same people who have claimed numerous times to want to wipe the US and Israel off the face of the Earth.


I have already stated that 9/11 should be classified as a terror attack, if we take the position that a tiny band of terrorists committed it, because it would be an unjust retaliation against the wrong individuals (oblivious civilians).

Yet you still seem to defend the people responsible for those attacks?


However, I still hold that the Pentagon attack cannot be classified as a terrorist attack as it is a military building, if we hold this view.

By saying that, you basically claim that you see that as an act of open conflict. We accepted, we brought the fight to their homeland, which is, guess where! The ME. Blame them we're there.


But I don't believe this story because it doesn't add up. First, how is it possible for a jetliner to be piloted from such a long distance away from its destination to fry so freely, on American airspace completed blinded from National security, into a civilian building in the center of Manhattan? If we hold that the WTC building is made of steel rods, heat generated by the jet fuel even inside this Boeing 767 isn't enough to melt the rods. The only way to melt these rods would have to come from another source inside the building.

Check this video for more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzH2epcFk1U

I don't have the source on hand, however I have seen scientists refute all possible aspects of 9/11 that could have been 'staged' by the US. I could find that source if you would like.


If we take this evidence, can it be that the whole 9/11 tragedy was staged by the US government (just as Hitler did with the burning of the Reichstag building) to justify military incursions into sovereign Muslim nations starting with one of the poorest nations in the world, Afghanistan, (creating a pretext) followed by the invasion of Iraq linking Saddam Hussein to Alqaeda and fake WMDs, and finally in military action against Lebanon, Syria (Arab Nationalist nations and an enemy of Israel), Iran, and Pakistan, eliminating three of the strongest Muslim nations militarily (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan). Thus making the Middle East easy to colonize and establishing permanent bases in the oil rich North-Western Arabian-Persian regions securing oil resources for more than a hundred years.

Well, let's just say that is our master plan, how would that be bad for us?

Yeah... because the Clinton Admin wasn't known for having shread and/or lost vital documents (I take it you don't remember the scandal involving Hillary who just so happened to have "lost" documents in the Whitehouse attic). There may be a good reason why the Republicans and (now) the Democrats have not investigated Bush-- there's nothing to investigate... much to the disappointment of flailing liberals. The missing documents in the Clinton case were "found", if you recall, as a result of subpeonas and investigation and special prosecution. And they turned out to amount to very little - no crime, apparently. Despite the flaming rhetoric and bizarre fulminations of the flailing "conservatives" - jackasses all, as it turned out - there wasn't all that much there. No Abramoff. No Rove. No Halliburton. No mob killings or gay hookers with White House connections. One little intern and a blue dress for going on 100 million dollars and the full cooperation of the entire Federal law enforcement system.

There is a visible, obvious good reason why the Democrats have not investigated W until recently - all their efforts have been blocked by Republicans. Unlike the Clinton investigations, no special prosecutors, no testimony under oath, no subpeonas even until recently. All that stuff blocked by Republicans. We do not need to speculate on what has happened to Dem investigations, we have seen it happen.

The reason the Republicans have not investigated W, and have instead blocked Democratic attempts, remains to be discovered - although the number and scope of the indictments against Republicans that have fallen out of even the cursory investigations mounted so far provides a clue, no?

With Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, various gay prostitutes and neo-con whackjobs, and a pack of Enron and Halliburton and Diebold execs, wandering the White House halls,

coupled with the odd contracting and political statistics emerging from the CBO, the war, and various tabulations

the idea that there is nothing to investigate is silly.

In the end, its only your word (supplied by US gov and media) against mine (with the evidence I have provided). Please take a look at the evidence I provided and investigate the matter.

I know that this might come as a shock, but who expected the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This event, 9/11, was planned (we do not know by who exactly), but with complicity from the US government. Otherwise it would be unlikely for the US to be in the Middle east, and at such an opportune time when oil prices are rising.

I'm sure many people don't agree with me, but this is my belief on the matter.

Then you're a fool who doesn't know the difference between media that strives to publish irrefutable facts and one that blatantly engages in propaganda and disinformation.

Media outlets from multiple nations have all had years to pour over the 9/11 happenings and not a single credible source has ever questioned what facts can essentially can be gleamed from the 9/11 report or Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.

DiamondHearts, here is the source debunking nearly all conspiracy theories, feel free to peruse:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
That page goes directly to the page that explains the specific example you brought up, but there are 9 other pages disproving other theories.

Unfortunately for your case, it was undoubtedly your kamikaze friends that did this.

Yeah, you posted a diatribe by a renowned leftist, who has a history of publishing leftist propiganda; AND who (it just sho happens) has a doctorate that is specious at best.



Yeah... because the Clinton Admin wasn't known for having shread and/or lost vital documents (I take it you don't remember the scandal involving Hillary who just so happened to have "lost" documents in the Whitehouse attic). There may be a good reason why the Republicans and (now) the Democrats have not investigated Bush-- there's nothing to investigate... much to the disappointment of flailing liberals.

~String

he didn't compare the bush adminastration to a fascist regime i did after considering his article it shows no bias or propaganda its strictly factual and states what he has obsereved. and you relieze to get a doctorate you have to submit a peer reviewed article. you seem to discredit my source becuase to do not like where my hypothesis led to. why not instead of a poor attempt at discrediting my source you try to refute my hypothesis or is that beyond your reasoning abilities. or maybe you know i'm right and are just to cowardly to admit it. and how many times was whitewater looked into and the clintons were shown to have done nothing wrong. no the dems are trying to investagate bush its just all the shit his adminastration has done that is worthy of investagation its hard to get to all of them. and to make things more diffacult he is doing everything he can to obstruct any investagations so way to stick to a factual reasoned debate. and before you bitch about how i'm not listening to you. first i am and second i'll respect your attemts to debate me when your willing to show the same to me ok?

Some things about the U.S media..
Fox news section is chaired by Bush's first cousin,
There is a large level of syndication from Fox, Reuters is also slightly biased considering it is U.S based.
Also, the information on Iraq, was lifted of a 1990 Uni Student's paper. This shows how desperate they were for credible information.

No, it's not, however, what it is censored by are the owners of these news corporations.

Media censorship in America is real. This is why the media always toes the American government line. Whenever there is a story, US media never reports two sides of a conflict, only the side the US government agrees with. The US government has also prohibited Middle Eastern News stations like Al Jazeera from operating in the US, or even Iraq and Afghanistan (like they own the place).




Well you should take it as a complement then; you've done such a good job being cowards and hiding yourselves that we have to resort to the spray and pray tactic. You preach honor, yet how honorable is it to have to use a crowd of civilians to stay alive?

Your entire premise is based on a fallacy presented by the US ruling powers. This is the main problem with the US foreign policy. The Iraqi resistance fighters are continually denounced and criticized with outlandish scenarios, just as the Taliban were. Misinformation is the hallmark of the Bush administration. You have taken their poison without thought.




Accused being the key word; also, the only people who accuse are those who just want to see our soldiers suffer because of bogus claims.

I guess I just imagined the horrible gross atrocities and sub-human tortures exhibited on innocent prisoners in Guantanamo, Abu Ghareeb, Bagram, and the other secret prison/ torture cells which we have not discovered yet.

The Americans and the European powers have a history of using the vilest and most inhuman torture methods and brutal actions to destroy the moral of the enemy.

I remember when the Americans were fighting against the Sioux and Cheyennes in the American Midwest. In response to an attack by some young Indians on livestock on a illegal farm built in their valley, the American military marched into Sand creek village and massacred more than a hundred women and children, just to break the Indian's moral. To further break their moral, major leaders of the Indian resistance like Red Cloud had their bodies displayed in museums for decades, while whites through rocks at their dead bodies. This inhumanity and insensitivity is a hallmark of American civilization.



AFAIK, the Iraqi government was elected by the people; blame yourselves if you don't like it.

An election which was illegal, unfair, and obviously rigged in favor of pro-American politicians. An election which the majority of the Iraqi population did not cast their votes. The blame rests with the US military, who continually interferes in the affairs of other nations, propping up hated dictators and tyrants, as they once did with Saddam and the Shah.




And neither do you, so why don't you just stop?


As I am not personally responsible for or condoning the genocide of millions of people in the Middle East, I feel it is my duty to preach morality to those who view this as only might is right.




The administration only acts if provoked, so stop poking the hornets nest.


The administration seeks a premise to be provoked. The entire bogus war on terror is sham. The media outlets do not inform the US public of even a fourth of the story, they only repeat Washington's orders.



Huh? The dude who invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War? How could we possibly denounce him as a threat?


Kuwait is a rightful part of Iraq, it used to be one of the provinces of Iraq but broke away with Western complicity. The West at that time funded saddam, and had an alliance with him, when Saddam tried to quell the internal revolt, the US attacked and supported the independence (read US seizure) of iraq's oil rich province of Kuwait. Later establishing half of Kuwait as a military base from which to bomb Iraq indiscriminately for 10 years.



Because their own actions warranted it. What do you think we do? Pick a random country and go, 'Hey, let's starve that SOB!'?

The US is far more sinister and intelligent than this. To make Iraq into a blunder only proves the ignorance of the American people. Iraq and Afghanistan are stepping stones to initiate the 'birth pangs' of the new subjugated Middle East.



Yeah, the same people who have claimed numerous times to want to wipe the US and Israel off the face of the Earth.

A classical example of media bias and censorship.

The statement by Iran's president (translated from its original Farsi) was this, "As Imam Khomenei predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union from the pages of history, so to will Israel pass from the pages of history because of its injustice against the Palestinians.'

The Western and US media used this as an excuse to launch an attack on Iran's president, initiating a conflict which the US and Israel want to settle with invasion and subjugation. Any people with even an elementary knowledge of farsi and access to this speech can easily disprove the statement you made.



Yet you still seem to defend the people responsible for those attacks?


Why would you assume that?

I told you before I disagree with this action, the people who committed this act are villians.

How many times do I have to repeat myself.

I agree that killing civilians is wrong.




By saying that, you basically claim that you see that as an act of open conflict. We accepted, we brought the fight to their homeland, which is, guess where! The ME. Blame them we're there.


No, I am basically stating that you cannot murder a soldier. Take time to think this over.

Ok, so a terrorist group attacked America. US blames some guy hiding in Afghanistan who denied he did it. US attacks Afghanistan without proving he did it. Taliban calls for an international televised court in Pakistan and invites US leaders to try the alleged terrorist leader there, US doesn't respond and launches air attacks on Afghanistan, forces Pakistan to offer airspace and bases with threat of attack on Pakistan as well.

Why does the world hate America, isn't it obvious?



I don't have the source on hand, however I have seen scientists refute all possible aspects of 9/11 that could have been 'staged' by the US. I could find that source if you would like.

Well, let's just say that is our master plan, how would that be bad for us?

It will catch up to the US eventually. The wars on the Middle East will only increase terrorist attacks, and justify future ones in the eyes of those who are wronged.

The British Empire had a really hard time controlling the Middle East, if the US creates some more wars, the situation can erupt into a full front confrontation. If the US cannot win in the weakened nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, what makes you believe the US can win against the regional powers like Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc.

Believe me, the US doesn't want that, compared to that future, the Middle East is relatively peaceful right now.


Then you're a fool who doesn't know the difference between media that strives to publish irrefutable facts and one that blatantly engages in propaganda and disinformation.

How about a media which blatantly engages in propaganda and disinformation and strives to publish them as irrefutable facts?



Media outlets from multiple nations have all had years to pour over the 9/11 happenings and not a single credible source has ever questioned what facts can essentially can be gleamed from the 9/11 report or Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.

You cannot expect a country with a censored media to publish credible information on 9/11. This is exactly the kind of thing which people get arrested for in the US. If you are Middle eastern, then it is almost guaranteed the government will investigate, arrest you if you say anything on public media which challenges the official stories (even hold you for years without any evidence of terrorist links whatsoever), particularly in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of all this unfounded, well, shit. Either provide some irrefutable source or STFU with all your conspiracy theories. I will do the same. I would go through and respond to what you said, but, to be honest, I don't see a point. I will always support my country and you yours, no matter how clearly we say we see things. There's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise and there's no point in you trying to convince me.

So, how about we end this little jousting match unless we get something that we can all confirm.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of all this unfounded, well, shit. Either provide some irrefutable source or STFU with all your conspiracy theories. I will do the same. I would go through and respond to what you said, but, to be honest, I don't see a point. I will always support my country and you yours, no matter how clearly we say we see things. There's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise and there's no point in you trying to convince me.

So, how about we end this little jousting match unless we get something that we can all confirm.

are you not paying attention the main source given was a respected unbiased source the larwence brit article

or maybe you know i'm right and are just to cowardly to admit it. and how many times was whitewater looked into and the clintons were shown to have done nothing wrong. no the dems are trying to investagate bush its just all the shit his adminastration has done that is worthy of investagation its hard to get to all of them. and to make things more diffacult he is doing everything he can to obstruct any investagations so way to stick to a factual reasoned debate. and before you bitch about how i'm not listening to you. first i am and second i'll respect your attemts to debate me when your willing to show the same to me ok?

I would never defend the Bush admin because I think he's a horrible president. His administration is a total failure and it has delivered on few of the promises that got him elected. I detest his christian fundamentalism. I can't help but wonder about his passion for spending my tax dollars that make we wince with pain when I have to realize that his administration has made even the tax & spend Dems look like fiscal conservatives. No Child Left Behind was a curse on the American education system, and his admin's mishandling of the Iraq situation deserves some serious scrutiny.

THAT SAID, however, there is NO way that this guy is even remotely a fascist or structuring itself, or the US government towards that direction. He's a failure and, possibly, a traitor... but hardly a fascist.

Lastly, just because an acknowledged leftist writes a bit of propiganda (and yes, he wrote it in response to the Bush admin, despite his claims to being neutral-- all one has to do is connect the dots), doesn't make his claims fact or worthy of factual debate.

Here are some REAL signs of a fascist regime: suspension of civil liberties (i.e. the press! the NY Times still posts articles against him), suspension of elections (sorry, the Dems now have the Congress), militarizing the police (um... we can't even get the fucking National Guard on the border to stop Mexicans from crossing!) and seizing of natinonal resources and publicly traded corporations (again, he can't even get the ANWR opened up for oil drilling).

For a dictator, or a dictator wannabe, he sure can't get much done the way he wants.

~String

Exactly, the man is a total failure as a leader on almost every single domestic issue he has tried to tackle. Yet people still yearn to posit him as some sort of powerful Hegemon who has drastically reshaped the American landscape...

He has. This reshaping comes in the form of deliberate destruction.

"The bane of our civil institutions is to be found in Masonry, already powerful and daily becoming more so. I owe to my country an exposure of its dangers." - Captain William Morgan, murdered Sept 11, 1826

-Here is something to chew on...hail hail to skull&bones :D
-To see current America one must look the past.

QUOTE
The "Mardi Gras Secrets" suggest that, given the depth of corruption, the US political system cannot be taken seriously as a democracy. There is a pattern of Illuminati-Rothschild control throughout US history. People who deny this are living in a fantasy.

The United States was created to advance the Illuminati New World Order based on Rothschild control of credit. American ideals were designed to dupe the masses, not to be realized.

The founders and heroes of the US were mostly Masons including Paul Revere, John Paul Jones and Benjamin Franklin. Francis Scott Key who wrote the national anthem was a Mason. John Hancock and most of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were also Masons.

More-than-half the Presidents were Masons. These include Washington, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, TR, Taft, Harding, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Clinton and Bush I and II.

Some of these really thought Masonry was about "making good men better" and had to be assassinated. Other Presidents who weren't Masons, like Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter, were still controlled by the same dark forces.

Throughout its history the United States has been in the clutches of a satanic cult empowered by the Rothschild central banking cartel. Many courageous Presidents and other politicians tried to free their countrymen and died unrecognized, their killers unpunished and triumphant.

The US is a nation decapitated, a headless giant led by demons.
QUOTE

Full Article http://www.savethemales.ca/002009.html

He has. This reshaping comes in the form of deliberate destruction.

Care to back that up a bit... or are you just going to come in, throw a nonsense grenade, and run?

~String

Exactly, the man is a total failure as a leader on almost every single domestic issue he has tried to tackle. Yet people still yearn to posit him as some sort of powerful Hegemon In the first place, no one that I know of is claiming W is masterminding this operation.

In the second: Failure ? By what criteria ? This has been a fairly successful administration from the viewpoint of its backers and beneficiaries. Aside from what may yet prove to be only a temporary setback in the looting of the Social Security income stream, and some trouble actually securing the oil in Iraq (a bonus anyway), what has W failed at from, say, Halliburton's point of view ?

THAT SAID, however, there is NO way that this guy is even remotely a fascist or structuring itself, or the US government towards that direction. And the many resemblances, the similarities of both rhetoric and action, they are all just coincidences? We have a swimming, quacking, waddling pheasant here, think you?

Or can you point to any action, political position, or rhetorical flourish of this administration that is not easily pigeonholed in a standard fascist category, that is not typical of nascent fascistic political influence as we are familiar with it ? Because I can't. These guys are typecast for their part in this conspiracy theory.

i was once listen to talk radio they a woman on who lived through the nazis reign and she said that the bush adminastrations was very similar to the early part of hitlers reign

i was once listen to talk radio they a woman on who lived through the nazis reign and she said that the bush adminastrations was very similar to the early part of hitlers reign

Wow... you heard a woman talk on the radio! It MUST be true!


Or can you point to any action, political position, or rhetorical flourish of this administration that is not easily pigeonholed in a standard fascist category, that is not typical of nascent fascistic political influence as we are familiar with it ? Because I can't. These guys are typecast for their part in this conspiracy theory.

Considering that I can see those same characteristics in past administrations (specifically the Lincoln, Wilson and [F.D.] Roosavelt administrations) to no ill effect of the republic. This administration has been tasked with fighting a very new kind of war, one which no previous administration has had to fight. That it stumbles at times is quite acceptable. More interesting is the fact that there has been ZERO change the average American lives their life. They still vote (you have yet to address the fact that the "opposition" still stands the best chance of beating the "fascist" Republicans-- a fact that has NOTHING to do with its supposed "fascist" leanings and more to do with its abject failure), they still bitch about the government, the media (in this supposedly proto-fascist state) still post anti-Bush editorials, and the Bush admin still struggles to get anything done. I'm sorry... you were saying that it's on its fascist in WHAT way?

~String

Wow... you heard a woman talk on the radio! It MUST be true!



Considering that I can see those same characteristics in past administrations (specifically the Lincoln, Wilson and [F.D.] Roosavelt administrations) to no ill effect of the republic. This administration has been tasked with fighting a very new kind of war, one which no previous administration has had to fight. That it stumbles at times is quite acceptable. More interesting is the fact that there has been ZERO change the average American lives their life. They still vote (you have yet to address the fact that the "opposition" still stands the best chance of beating the "fascist" Republicans-- a fact that has NOTHING to do with its supposed "fascist" leanings and more to do with its abject failure), they still bitch about the government, the media (in this supposedly proto-fascist state) still post anti-Bush editorials, and the Bush admin still struggles to get anything done. I'm sorry... you were saying that it's on its fascist in WHAT way?

~String

So your just going to ignore the reasons why i considered the woman who was on a credible source? The fact she lived in Nazi Germany and the U.S. I would say that qualifies her to compare the two?

Yes, because we poor repressed Americans live under a fascist regime. Let's see just how fascist it is when the Bush finises his term and exits, peacefully, in 2008. Generally, fascists declair martial law, suspend the constitution and begin repressing "the people" before the election happens. Why has none of this happened yet?

~String

Why would the people who tell Bush what to do need to put tanks on the streets? Why not have the next president in their pockets? Oops he or she is already there.

See how far you'll get with being in their pockets: city alderman?

Considering that I can see those same characteristics in past administrations (specifically the Lincoln, Wilson and [F.D.] Roosavelt administrations) to no ill effect of the republic. Preemptive war? An institutionalized network of torture prisons? Suspension of habeus corpus ? Lying to Congress about major wiretapping and surveillance operations that violate both the Constution and specific Congressional law ? Warrantless search and seizure? Packing the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary and Attornies General, and the upper echelons of every Federal oversight agancy, with political campaign staffers and party loyalists rather than qualified and independent professionals ? Packing the Cabinet and upper executive levels of the government with executives and representatives from established, known centers of financial crime and political corruption ?

Not even during the actual wartime and dire circumstances faced did any of those three do all that. And even what they did do along those lines, on a much smaller scale and for much shorter times, had some ill effects, no?
This administration has been tasked with fighting a very new kind of war, one which no previous administration has had to fight. That it stumbles at times is quite acceptable. The only thing really new here is the particular manner in which this administration has chosen to "stumble". And "acceptable" is not my description for it.

This administration was not "tasked" with turning the situation it inherited into war - worse, preemptive and civil war. That was one of the "stumbles".

Preemptive war? An institutionalized network of torture prisons? Suspension of habeus corpus ? Lying to Congress about major wiretapping and surveillance operations that violate both the Constution and specific Congressional law ? Warrantless search and seizure?

Fine, then we can stop doing that and hopefully you'll be the first one to get their ass blown up by people who would like nothing more than to have you killed.

Is that what you prefer?

Media censorship in America is real. This is why the media always toes the American government line. Whenever there is a story, US media never reports two sides of a conflict, only the side the US government agrees with. The US government has also prohibited Middle Eastern News stations like Al Jazeera from operating in the US, or even Iraq and Afghanistan (like they own the place).

You cannot expect a country with a censored media to publish credible information on 9/11. This is exactly the kind of thing which people get arrested for in the US. If you are Middle eastern, then it is almost guaranteed the government will investigate, arrest you if you say anything on public media which challenges the official stories (even hold you for years without any evidence of terrorist links whatsoever), particularly in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq.

American media is not censored, or how is it you think you heard about CIA flights of prisoners overseas, American soldiers torturing prisoners and problems at Gitmo? All were stories broken by American reporters. The American media might not always do its job or do its job well, but it certainly isn't bothered by offending the government or shaking the boots of those in power. You can compare the American media with the one in Saudi Arabia or any other major Arab nation anytime you like, and I doubt the latter will come out the better if one looks for stories critical about its ruling elite.

But other than nonsense, what I am to expect from someone who thinks Al Jezeera, which has Washington and NY offices, is a credible news source?

Media censorship in America is real. This is why the media always toes the American government line. Whenever there is a story, US media never reports two sides of a conflict, only the side the US government agrees with. The US government has also prohibited Middle Eastern News stations like Al Jazeera from operating in the US, or even Iraq and Afghanistan (like they own the place).

Just in case you were still under the ridiculous impression that Al Jazeera didn't have an office in the USA... here is their office in NYC + phone number just in case you feel that I'm spreading as much bullshit as you.

Al Jazeera International Inc
405 E 42nd
New York, NY 10017

(212) 317-8238

Al Jazeera International is ALSO a 24-hour news channel (which actually has a commendable mission-- each news desk gets to report the news from its own POV without gettin approval from the main office in Doha, Qatar) that will have a FOUR hour segment broadcast from its offices in the USA. I'm sorry, what were you saying, again, about it being banned in the USA? Just in case you wanted something to back this up, here's a interesting article for you: Al Jazeera (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/104/open_aljazeera.html).

Oh-- and for your information, if the US government (the censoring body you claim it to be) even ever thought of stopping Al Jazeera from operating in the USA, the ACLU would be all over it like flies on shit.

What posesses you to even post if you (a) can't back up a fact and (b) can't even tell the truth. You and Cotton must come from the same background.

~String

American media is not censored, or how is it you think you heard about CIA flights of prisoners overseas, American soldiers torturing prisoners and problems at Gitmo? All were stories broken by American reporters. Hardly. They were, in the first place, "broken" by amateurs and marginal investigators and foreign reporters by way of the internet and similar means. In the second, they were sat on for months and minimized afterwards by the major news outlets. Third, all these stories have been, and still are, in fact largely absent from the mainstream media. Subtract Seymour Hersh, who is not a reporter for a news outlet or a familiar pundit on TV, and you have very little actual reporting in any "respectable" source of any of those stories. What reporting you do have universally follows the administration press releases in its language and coverage.

For example, AFAIK no major US media ran any kind of story on the interrogation policies and procedures at Abu Ghraib. So when I point out to US people that the stuff in the pictures was not an aberration but was instead pretty much in line with those interrogation procedures, that these procedures were common to other prisons, that it was not hidden but was known to the doctors and interrogators and contractors and other guards and so forth, that it happened over months, and that it involved abuse of women and children as well as men, I get all kinds of reactions along the lines of "prove it" and "you are making that up".

How many US major media sources reported the fact that Taguba was specifically ordered not to carry his investigation past the immediate commander of the guard unit involved in the pictures? That to this day there has been no investigation of the higher chain of command, the mercenaries and contractors, or the domestic US political involvement, even in Abu Ghraib, let alone the other prisons? That even for the constrained, limited, but honest report he did produce, Taguba's career was blighted and he was coerced into retirement ?

The story here, not reported, is that Abu Ghraib was covered up. And none of the usual explanations suffices: the story was lurid and sensational, involved Americans and war, did not offend any known major advertisers, had pictures, etc etc.

So the question is not whether the major US news media are managed and curbed and coerced into servility, but how this is being done. Unlike, say, Pravda, that had a government censorship department right in the main offices (similar to the political overseers recently installed in US scientific and oversight agency offices), the US media are not obviously prevented from actual reporting. So what is happening, has happened, to the news in the US?

No. Although I am aware that the policies of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and Bagram and Bucca and several others have been dismissed as such by the willfully ignorant and ethically bankrupt. I am speaking of the interrogation policy changes that motivated the sitting President to request of his staff documentation covering his ass for violations of the Geneva Convention, violations of a signed treaty of the US that he is bound by law - no longer enforeceable, apparently - to obey. "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques, as US policy manuals called it, in language borrowed (deliberately? ) from the Gestapo policy manuals for interrogation of Norwegian partisans.

And although not all of this is new, some of it is: and my point was that it is now not only new and expanded but open - Gitmo is not secret, the torture has been discovered, what formerly had to be concealed can now be done officially and in public, or with transparent denials of technical guilt. That is the point I made - we have taken a long stride down a bad road, recently.
I don't think anyone here has claimed the fascist state our current trends aim toward is here already. There are still, as I specifically mentioned, habits of decent government ingrained in our institutions. They will not disappear overnight. But as of now and increasingly they no longer have the solid backing of Constitutional principle or Federal obedience. Habeus corpus has been suspended, in the US, for cases of "terrorism". If you know what habeus corpus is, you will recognize that once suspended for any reason in any circumstance it is no longer reliably enforceable at all until formally and firmly restored.
You do, indeed, set history aside to make such statements. And the US slide toward fascism did indeed start many years ago. But this latest Iraq scam is a new low, eh? Certainly the debate in Congress was not about authorizing war, and those who recognized that they were in fact authorizing Presidential whims for war were opposed to the resolution - and widely ridiculed for exaggerating the situation. The rest took W's word - always a mistake.
? US soldiers are not suicide bombed very often. Snipers and IEDs get them.

Your Geneva Conventions statement is factually incorrect. We have never signed the treaty. We are not bound by it legally. Don't just take my word for it, look it up. Do so from the website, not the media outlets.

the question i have is if america is such a facist country why are people coming here in droves? why do we have such an illegal alien problem?

Just in case you were still under the ridiculous impression that Al Jazeera didn't have an office in the USA... here is their office in NYC + phone number just in case you feel that I'm spreading as much bullshit as you.


Thank you for your post, I will definately give Al Jazeera a call.

However I stand by my post, the Al Jazeera English channel which is now operational in many countries is still not being allowed to run in the US, obviously from pressure from the US government who have constantly barraged the free media reporting of the station with accusations of helping terrorists because they report both sides of the story, unlike US media.

Your Geneva Conventions statement is factually incorrect. We have never signed the treaty. We are not bound by it legally. Don't just take my word for it, look it up. Do so from the website, not the media outlets.


United States of America 12.08.1949 02.08.1955 02.08.1955.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con_sp.html


Clara Barton, a nurse in the American Civil War, led the campaign to persuade the United States to sign the Geneva Convention. In 1877 Barton organized the American National Committee, which three years later became the American Red Cross. However, it was not until 1882 that the USA signed the Geneva Convention. It was also agreed to support Barton's efforts to distribute relief during floods, earthquakes, famines, cyclones and other peacetime disasters.

After the USA signed the Geneva Convention others followed including Bulgaria (1884), Japan (1886), Luxemburg (1888), Venezuela (1894), South Africa (1896), Uruguay (1900), Guatemala (1903), Mexico (1905), China (1906), Germany (1906), Brazil (1906), Cuba (1907), Panama (1907) and Paraguay (1907).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm

Thank you for your post, I will definately give Al Jazeera a call.

However I stand by my post, the Al Jazeera English channel which is now operational in many countries is still not being allowed to run in the US,

Yes it is, by four providers.

Yes it is, by four providers.

Can you provide more detail as to which services in the US television or satellite provide an English channel version of Al Jazeera.

Hi DH,

It is listed on their web site.

Hi DH,

It is listed on their web site.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the English Al Jazeera channel being shown by any American cable or satellite services.

Isn't it blocked by most, if not all cable providers though?

Looks like it is widely available.

From their web site:

Al Jazeera English platforms:


Afghanistan: Tolo TV Australia: Transact, UBI TV Belguim: TV Vlaanderen Bosnia & Herzegovina: Dzemo, H & S, Bulgaria: MSAT, SKAT Croatia: Vodatel Cyprus: Primetel Denmark: Canal Digitaal Estonia: Elion Ettevotted AS, AS STV, Teleset AS, City TV Finland: Canal Digitaal, TTV/Elisa Co-operation Pool France: TPS, Canal Sat, Neuf/Cegetel, Free, T Online, Tele 2, NOOS Germany: KDG, Premiere Subscribers, DNMG, Kabel BW - Land Baden-Wuerttemberg, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH - Hamburg, netcologne GmbH - Cologne, Kabel Kiosk (Eutelsat), Telecolumbus - Berlin, and other areas Ghana: Metro TV Greece: Nova, Teledome DSL Honduras: Cable Sula Hong Kong: HK Broadband Indonesia: XL, Ireland: Digital satellite Israel: YES, Pelephone, Cellcom, Orange Italy: Sky Italia Jordan: Jump TV Kenya: Nation TV Kuwait: United Network Company Latvia: Baltkom, IZZI Lebanon: Cablevision Lithuania: Balticum Malaysia: ASTRO, Maldives: Media Net Malta: Multiplus Middle East: NileSat (including subscribers to the Showtime network), ArabSat New Zealand: ORCUS Norway: Canal Digitaal, Consoll IPTV, Next GenTel Poland: Cyfra Plus, Cyfrowy Polsat, Toya (Lodz) Portugal: Novis Qatar: Qatar Cable Romania: iNES Group, DTH Group South Africa: Vodacom, Spain: Jazztelia TV, Orange TV, ZTV-Marina Sweden: Com Hem, Canal Digitaal Switzerland: NAXOO Thailand: Buddy TV The Netherlands: Canal Digitaal, Essent, Xtra Televisie Turkey: Turksat UAE: Etisalat, Evision UK: Digital satellite (Sky Guide 514), Vingo US: Globecast, Fision, Jump TV, VDC Uganda: Nation TV

Isn't it blocked by most, if not all cable providers though?

The only news you cannot watch in U.S is news from other planets.

Looks like it is widely available.

From their web site:

Al Jazeera English platforms:

Can you provide some information on the following stations. Globecast, Fision, Jump TV, VDC as I am not familiar with these names.

Come on, now you guys are messing with me:

http://www.fision.net/

Can you provide some information on the following stations. Globecast, Fision, Jump TV, VDC as I am not familiar with these names.

Neither am I and I thought I knew all the new sites.:eek:

Neither am I and I thought I knew all the new sites.:eek:

Sam, everyone makes a mistake. it's ok.

The only news you cannot watch in U.S is news from other planets.

Based on what I've seen in the US that pretty much covers anything outside its borders.

[/URL]
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con_sp.html (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/(SPF)/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf)


[url]http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm

I do stand partially corrected. Though, what matters most as far as the conventions go is the ICC. We have never ratified that, though we have ratified several others issues.

Here is the direct link to the ICRC, which has all the convention information. Like I said, don't use a media outlet they will surprise tell you what they want to know.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/(SPF)/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf

If you get a chance, watch Aaron Russo's "America - Freedom to Fascism." Fascinating. Will give you insight into just how fascist America has become and how subtly this is being perpetrated by the bankers of the world.

"The constitution is just a God-damned piece of paper."
-George W. Bush
5 NOV 2005
Capitol Hill Blue

Hardly. They were, in the first place, "broken" by amateurs and marginal investigators and foreign reporters by way of the internet and similar means.

You'll need to prove that before I believe you.


In the second, they were sat on for months and minimized afterwards by the major news outlets. Third, all these stories have been, and still are, in fact largely absent from the mainstream media. Subtract Seymour Hersh, who is not a reporter for a news outlet or a familiar pundit on TV, and you have very little actual reporting in any "respectable" source of any of those stories. What reporting you do have universally follows the administration press releases in its language and coverage.

The rendition story earned the AP a pulitzer this year, I believe. I can't help it if you don't read a paper that carries their stories.


For example, AFAIK no major US media ran any kind of story on the interrogation policies and procedures at Abu Ghraib. So when I point out to US people that the stuff in the pictures was not an aberration but was instead pretty much in line with those interrogation procedures, that these procedures were common to other prisons, that it was not hidden but was known to the doctors and interrogators and contractors and other guards and so forth, that it happened over months, and that it involved abuse of women and children as well as men, I get all kinds of reactions along the lines of "prove it" and "you are making that up".

Maybe the reason people react that way to you is because you have a habit of making things up, or expecting people to swallow your opinions as facts and your inferences as gospel. You're certainly do that with your misguided opinion concerning the above. The systematic torture put into practice by the administration has been covered extensively by the NYT and all major media outlets on television, though I can't speak as to whether the story was "quick enough" in getting covered for you. And I'm sure you recall posting a link to a peice by Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic about the matter? Bob Woodward also wrote about it in State of Denial.

It's funny. None of this stuff is getting reported, but you never suffer too hard looking for links to post to bolster your arguments, do you?



How many US major media sources reported the fact that Taguba was specifically ordered not to carry his investigation past the immediate commander of the guard unit involved in the pictures? That to this day there has been no investigation of the higher chain of command, the mercenaries and contractors, or the domestic US political involvement, even in Abu Ghraib, let alone the other prisons? That even for the constrained, limited, but honest report he did produce, Taguba's career was blighted and he was coerced into retirement?

The New Yorker, which apparently you don't consider a news source, wrote about it this week.


So the question is not whether the major US news media are managed and curbed and coerced into servility, but how this is being done.

The media, for which I am no great apologist despite my involvement with it, has not had anything of the sort happen to it. I think your problem is that the amount of "play" certain stories get and the news judgement news organizations use about the stories they choose to pursue. These are quite different than censorship, and any attempt to make them so, is nothing more than gross hyperbole on your part in another of your vain attempts to "prove" some sort of over-arching plan of action, or inaction, where your particular political interests are concerned.

Thank you for your post, I will definately give Al Jazeera a call.

However I stand by my post, the Al Jazeera English channel which is now operational in many countries is still not being allowed to run in the US, obviously from pressure from the US government who have constantly barraged the free media reporting of the station with accusations of helping terrorists because they report both sides of the story, unlike US media.

Dude... it isn't broadcast in MOST (it can be received on some networks) OF the USA because of a very, VERY real threat to those who carry it: consumer backlash. Consider this-- in my community I have a choice between three different cable companies (Cox, Time-Warner and Zoom) as well as various DishNetwork offerings. What sort of commercial game can Cox play against Zoom if Zoom began to carry Al Jazeera? (i.e.: "At Cox, we support our nation in this time of need, and we've decided NOT to carry the propiganda network that has helped out our terrorist enemies..." Don't fool yourself into believing that in the cutthroad world of cable television, this couldn't happen). Moreover, DO NOT TELL ME that there aren't millions of Americans who wouldn't switch at the first sign of a cable company's attempt to carry Al Jazeera. I live in "pro USA" town (like about half of the rest of the country), and that's a substantial loss of customers. Even if the loss isn't totally realized, it's still enough of a threat to stop any carrier.

Lastly, just ask the cable companies. They say the same thing-- too much risk of consumer backlash. Most importantly, why WOULD the USA ban it when the people they oversee do such a good job of banning Al Jazeera on its own?

(also, I don't know if you know this, but Al Jazeera has been having HUGE difficulties getting the station off the ground, globally. Plus they are worried about a backlash from their CORE audience [muslims / arabs] who see the switiching to an all English broadcast as traitorous)

~String

So its not banned?

No. It's available on many networks.

Most importantly, it's ILLEGAL to ban it in the USA... UNLESS there is absolute proof that it is involved DIRECTLY in the aiding and comforting of our enemies. Just because Al Jazeera is not PRO USA (I won't call it "anti-USA" Because, I couldn't substantiat that), doesn't get it banned. If that were the truth, then The New Yorker, LA Times, NY Times, Moveon.org, The Village Voice and other such media outlets would also be banned.

~String

Exactly. There is virtually no censorship in this country being practiced by the government. What the market does, however, is entirely another matter...

I think your problem is that the amount of "play" certain stories get and the news judgement news organizations use about the stories they choose to pursue. These are quite different than censorship, and any attempt to make them so, is nothing more than gross hyperbole on your part Yes, not only amount but type, of the play.

And no, observing how effective whatever it is that is managing the the US media has become is not "gross hyperbole". (It certainly isn't "the market". These guys create markets for a living.)

Illustration:
You'll need to prove that before I believe you.
- - -
The rendition story earned the AP a pulitzer this year, I believe. I can't help it if you don't read a paper that carries their stories.
- -
Maybe the reason people react that way to you is because you have a habit of making things up, or expecting people to swallow your opinions as facts and your inferences as gospel. You're certainly do that with your misguided opinion concerning the above. The systematic torture put into practice by the administration has been covered extensively by the NYT and all major media outlets on television,
- -
It's funny. None of this stuff is getting reported, but you never suffer too hard looking for links to post to bolster your arguments, do you?
- - -
"How many US major media sources reported the fact - - "

The New Yorker, which apparently you don't consider a news source, wrote about it this week. Now if you look at this crap, there's two main themes: My claim that the coverage of these stories in the major US news media has been both sparse and manipulated by government designs is unsupported and contrary to evidence

and the reason my retailings of the common facts of these events is greeted with derision and disbelief, is that I haven't the personal authority or reputation to overcome the unfamiliarity and improbability of such outlandish assertions.

Penny drop, yet?

Yes, not only amount but type, of the play.

And no, observing how effective whatever it is that is managing the the US media has become is not "gross hyperbole". (It certainly isn't "the market". These guys create markets for a living.)

Right, and that's all your opinion. In the opinion of the editors, publishers and producers those stories were played the way they thought they ought to be. Does this mean the professionals were right and you were wrong? No, but it doesn't mean the contrary, either. It's subjective, and if you want to argue the subjective you'll have to come down off your high horse and realize that whatever seam flows from your fingers isn't necessarily gold...

As for creating markets, you obviously don't understand business or the news business, and haven't picked up a paper or turned on the television lately, for if you did, you'd see how much the media is suffering, which must mean it's failing in whatever campaign of manipulation you allege.


Illustration: Now if you look at this crap, there's two main themes: My claim that the coverage of these stories in the major US news media has been both sparse and manipulated by government designs is unsupported and contrary to evidence and the reason my retailings of the common facts of these events is greeted with derision and disbelief, is that I haven't the personal authority or reputation to overcome the unfamiliarity and improbability of such outlandish assertions.

It is unsupported, and you're greeted with derision, by me and a few others, because you expect people to swallow your opinions as facts, and when they don't, you attempt label them as uninformed or engaging in personal attacks or "crap". I listed several specific examples of how your theory about the reporting concerning America is wrong, and rather than discuss those examples, you write some esoteric rant that blatantly ignores them, just as you ignored the BBC article I posted in another thread that specifically undermined your argument. This games of yours is getting old, and frankly, I'm tired of it.

I listed several specific examples of how your theory about the reporting concerning America is wrong, Is that what they were supposed to illustrate? I gave you the New Yorker example myself, in an argument (there's that word, again!) supporting my contention (and no, it is not a major US news outlet. Nor is the Atlantic). The coverage of Abu Ghraib was another example I gave you - and described how it illustrated the problem the US has with its news media, what was missing and managed in taht coverage, as part of an argument. You say there was lots of coverage of Abu Ghraib, as if that settled something, but do not deal with the nature of that coverage, the things I pointed out lacking in all that alleged coverage, and do not therefore deal with the argument.

So your specific examples fail to deal with "my theory" at all, lacking argument and as easily - already, in fact - employed with argument to support my contentions.

So your immediate and continual resort to personal slur, which has typified almost every response to any of my posts anywhere on this forum ("reluctantly" of course) once again floats on no argument and bad evidence.

Meanwhile: I did have an argument, in that post above. Did you notice? Do you care to deal with anything besides my alleged character flaws? Penny drop, yet?

Yet another coin flip:
In the opinion of the editors, publishers and producers those stories were played the way they thought they ought to be. So the patterns of that play are conscious, deliberate: they have their reasons, you say.

I believe that. But the patterns of their play are still there. The major US news media are operating as government propaganda outlets a good share of the time, and doormats the rest. The question is not whether, but how, this is happening.

Yes, I am to blame when it's you that have cleverly shifted the focus of your argument from whether something is covered to your subjective appreciation of the coverage. Oh, you are a slippery one indeed!

Let's review, shall we? You wrote that there was "very little actual reporting in any 'respectable' source of any of those stories" and that "what reporting you do have universally follows the administration press releases in its language and coverage." I think I listed specific books magazines, television stations that all covered the issue you discussed and all digressed from the official White House line.

So once again, you're unhappy with the massive amounts of critical coverage these outlets dedicated to things like Abu Ghraib. Fine. You can get all red in the face and huffy all you want, but it's nothing more than your subjective opinion, which doesn't prove the media is "managed and curbed and coerced into servility." Seriously, when the NYT breaks a story about domestic wiretapping over the strenuous objections of the elected leader of this country, how can you argue any of the above?

You also say things were "sat on for months" and "minimized". Have any proof of either? And what about your internet pals? Any proof of that?

Opinions and inferences, that's all we ever get from you...

Al Jazeera is not allowed to cover both US occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, why is this? How does this fit in with free media?

As a matter of fact one of the main demands of the US during the Fallujah attack was removal of Al Jazeera workers covering the war. Also there was an attack on the Al Jazeera station in Baghdad by US forces during the beginning of the war.

I'm not certain what you are saying is true, but even if it is, there is nothing that says the US military has to let Al Jazeera cover something in a war in a foreign country.

I would also hasten to ad that Al Jazeera is hardly "free media," either. Oftentimes, it's a bullhorn for terrorists to get their message out and collects information for them. Maybe that's why American commanders were wary of letting it near their troops...

I think I listed specific books magazines, television stations that all covered the issue you discussed and all digressed from the official White House line. The only things you listed that diverged significantly from the official White House lines were a couple of obscure articles in monthly magazines

that I mentioned first.

None of the TV coverage of Abu Ghraib that you refer to, without argument from it to counter my claims against it, diverged from the White House damage control line, for example. None of the original reportage AP stuff that made it into the major media outlets diverged significantly from the official line on the issues at hand, or even used vocabulary significantly opposed to that required by the official line of all "responsible" news arganizations.

And the reason I mentioned Hersh in the New Yorker, and the Atlantic articles, and the Conyers findings, and the House subcommittee findings, and so forth, was to illustrate some of what was missing from the major media news coverage. The point was that the stuff missing is too big, too sensational, too significant, for its absence to be chance or "market forces".

And along the way, I observed that the reactions to my retailings of common facts, facts (referenced in the Conyers report, the Hersh articles, etc etc)that you claim were broadcast all over the place in major US media, show that these common facts are not at all familiar to the people on this forum, including you. They are greeted as outlandish and bizarre and biased opinions of mine, instead. This is so even if I point out that they are often right in front of everyone's face, requiring only recognition. The doctors and interrogators at Abu Ghraib have not been prosecuted, and Abu Ghraib has never been formally investigated beyond the few soldiers prosecuted, for example.

And why do you suppose I did that? Because I was arguing, not simply asserting opinion - unlike you, who seems to believe that its not an opinion if it's yours, and therefore needs no argument from evidence. Because you have yet to supply one, for such unsupported contentions as:

the US major media covered Abu Ghraib thoroughly, including the significant and sensational aspects of its setup that we find laid out in a few prose articles in the New Yorker and other even less publicized venues.

Or: the Abu Ghraib and extraordinary renditions and WMD evidence-rigging stories were "broken" initially through investigative reportage by major US news media, which then featured them, and did not "sit on" or otherwise modify and suppress them in line with official influences.

These are opinions of yours. They may be supportable, may not be. They run counter to the evidence I have provided and linked, however.

Al Jazeera is not allowed to cover both US occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, why is this? How does this fit in with free media?

As a matter of fact one of the main demands of the US during the Fallujah attack was removal of Al Jazeera workers covering the war. Also there was an attack on the Al Jazeera station in Baghdad by US forces during the beginning of the war.

No matter how you dice it-- the United States MILITARY isn't under any obligation to allow anybody but whomever THEY believe has the best interest of the United States Military in mind. Civilian enterprises are a different story. But the job of the military isn't to further any foreign media organization's desires--whether they be good or bad.

Not surprisingly the United States Military is a bit skittish when it comes to the idea of embedding a muslim news organization within its ranks.

~String

No matter how you dice it-- the United States MILITARY isn't under any obligation to allow anybody but whomever THEY believe has the best interest of the United States Military in mind. Civilian enterprises are a different story. But the job of the military isn't to further any foreign media organization's desires--whether they be good or bad.

Not surprisingly the United States Military is a bit skittish when it comes to the idea of embedding a muslim news organization within its ranks.

~String

But not Muslim officers or recruits. :confused:

But not Muslim officers or recruits. :confused:

Perhaps I should have been clearer-- FOREIGN media organization who has, on many occasions, served as the mouth piece to the same enemies that the military is currently fighting (which, it just so happens to also be a Muslim organization... to deny that fact would be to deny the cressent painted elephant in the room).

~String

The only things you listed that diverged significantly from the official White House lines were a couple of obscure articles in monthly magazines that I mentioned first.

You mentioned them first. Yes, I can see how that means your inferences and arguments about those stories are automatically correct then.

But since you want to talk about it, let's be clear: The New Yorker is hardly an "obscure" magazine (and Seymour Hersh is an extremely well-known reporter). Its print run is well in excess of 1 million, a figure that trumps all but a few newspapers, and in my experience it can be found in every single airport shop, news stand or retail book outlet in America. Whether Hersh "broke" the story or not, I cannot say. That would take hours of research through the endless blogs and web sites, which you no doubt think do a "better" job covering things than the American media. The point is Hersh wrote about it, and within days of publishing, the rest of the American media was gleefully following the trail he blazed because it made Bush and company look bad and were doing stories and running pictures of Abu Ghraib abuses. So where's the censorship?


None of the TV coverage of Abu Ghraib that you refer to, without argument from it to counter my claims against it, diverged from the White House damage control line, for example. None of the original reportage AP stuff that made it into the major media outlets diverged significantly from the official line on the issues at hand, or even used vocabulary significantly opposed to that required by the official line of all "responsible" news organizations.

In other words, their coverage wasn't bombastic and accusatory enough for you, because they printed the administration's damage control lines? That's call being fair and objective. They have to print what the administration says, but that doesn't mean they were kowtowing to them. If they were, they would have minimized or ignored the story altogether, which they did not. It was the lead story on nightly news casts and front pages for weeks, as were armor shortages, flawed Hummers, the consistent lack of enough troops and all the other critical stories about the administration's war effort, which you seem to put of your mind or intentionally overlook in your zeal to prove some sort of control by a higher power.


The point was that the stuff missing is too big, too sensational, too significant, for its absence to be chance or "market forces".

I'm confused. What's missing? I've read and/or seen plenty of stories about flawed intelligence, torture and other misdeeds by the Bush's. In fact, that's really all I see, because my betters in the media don't waste their time covering positive stories about Iraq.


And along the way, I observed that the reactions to my retailings of common facts, facts (referenced in the Conyers report, the Hersh articles, etc etc) that you claim were broadcast all over the place in major US media, show that these common facts are not at all familiar to the people on this forum, including you.

As I've read them, I think I know about them. The difference is we disagree what those stories signify, which is subjective.


They are greeted as outlandish and bizarre and biased opinions of mine, instead. This is so even if I point out that they are often right in front of everyone's face, requiring only recognition.

As I have argued before, I think the reason you provoke the responses you do is that your expect people to accept your subjective opinion and your inferences of chains of facts as dogma that cannot be questioned, when in fact, it is possible to reach much different conclusions, as this little exchange is evidence of.


The doctors and interrogators at Abu Ghraib have not been prosecuted, and Abu Ghraib has never been formally investigated beyond the few soldiers prosecuted, for example.

Well, some of them have, but the higher-ups, for the most part, have escaped censor, and this is a problem. Still, my paper ran a column Friday by Joe Galloway that said as much, and Hersh's story appeared this week in the New Yorker saying is much. So it is being discussed, it's just not being discussed as loudly or as seriously as you and I would like for it to be. That's not due to censorship, though. The Media simply won't spend time on stories that don't gather "traction." They're too busy catering to their audience's craving for other "copy." Sad? Yes. Censorship? No...


Because I was arguing, not simply asserting opinion

Yes, you were arguing, and eloquent though it was, your arguing was largely based on little more than opinion and inference, both of which are subjective.


Because you have yet to supply one, for such unsupported contentions as: the US major media covered Abu Ghraib thoroughly, including the significant and sensational aspects of its setup that we find laid out in a few prose articles in the New Yorker and other even less publicized venues.

I don't know that this can be "proven" in any traditional sense, because the subject matter is so subjective. I've spoken at length about news agencies that covered the story (NYT, etc.), but you don't seem to think they covered it enough or followed the story to its ultimate conclusion. You've also admitted you didn't like how the story "played," another subjective judgment on your part. I don't think there's anything I could say or post that would convince you otherwise. We just disagree.


Or: the Abu Ghraib and extraordinary renditions and WMD evidence-rigging stories were "broken" initially through investigative reportage by major US news media, which then featured them, and did not "sit on" or otherwise modify and suppress them in line with official influences.

I said they broke them and mentioned Hersh and the AP, because that's where I saw them first, and I'm fairly plugged in to the media world. You posited that others were writing about this sooner. I asked you to prove that and you haven't. In the end, it doesn't matter. It's like arguing who discovered America: Nameless vikings or Columbus. The latter is what is most important, because the latter is what effected change. If some dopey blogger was talking about torture in Iraq before Hersh, so what?

In conclusion, it's obvious we have a very different appreciation of how the news media has covered Iraq and all its entanglements, which is fine. However, I don't think your disappointment proves manipulation, management or censorship in any way shape or form. To do that, you need to prove where a story was killed or downplayed intentionally, similar to the way I challenged you about the wiretapping story to ostensibly prove that American news organizations don't tow the administration line, an example you've chosen to overlook in your voluminous post above...

=count] You mentioned them first. Yes, I can see how that means your inferences and arguments about those stories are automatically correct then They'll stand until countered. So far, no attempts even.

Whether Hersh "broke" the story or not, I cannot say. I will stipulate for this thread that Hersh "broke" the story, and many others over his career.
The point is Hersh wrote about it, and within days of publishing, the rest of the American media was gleefully following the trail he blazed because it made Bush and company look bad and were doing stories and running pictures of Abu Ghraib abuses. So where's the censorship? The "censorship", or whatever it was, is revealed in the content of Hersh's articles (and Stephen Miles's, etc) contrasted with the major news media versions of the story, over the subsequent year.

The major news media missed dozens of opportunities to make W&Co "look bad", and had to leave out central and significant Hersh content to do that. Instead, they reported the whole story according to the damage control line: a few rogue soldiers, isolated incidents, thorough investigations and serious prosecutions of the guilty, not really "torture" anyway, etc.

Very bad, very embarrassing, but nothing that directly impugned the core of the war effort or the higher command - as the Hersh and Miles and other obscure articles in monthly magazines did.

So even now, when I mention (for example) that the abuses pictured at Abu Ghraib were part of an officially prescribed interrogation procedure, that this procedure included abuse of children and women, and that the abuses have never been investigated formally by deliberate restriction, these are just opinions of mine. They are not familiar facts from the major media news.

Likewise when I mention that the WMD intelligence was rigged, not "flawed", and obviously so well in advance of the invasion.

The major US media was complicit and absurdly compliant in the demonization of Saddam nd the runup to invasion. It behaved quite similarly to Soviet media before the collapse. That is "market forces" at work ?


I'm confused. What's missing? I've read and/or seen plenty of stories about flawed intelligence, torture and other misdeeds by the Bush's. And yet my retailings of essentially simple, well-documented, obvious, and completely ordinary facts about those matters is greeted by you with charges of unsupported opinion, bombastic accusation, etc.

If even you have no real acquaintenceship with what would been important straight news in these matters, my contention is that the news in the US is not straight. This pattern is consistent, and indicates serious problems.

I don't think your disappointment proves manipulation, management or censorship in any way shape or form. To do that, you need to prove where a story was killed or downplayed intentionally, Not for waht I'm arguing. Mechanism remains to be discussed - so far the simple results, the end state of affairs, remains in disagreement.

Yeah, yeah, yeah (to quote four lads from Liverpool). What I see here is more of the same from you. You're never wrong. And your opinions are facts that "stand until countered."

Must be nice to live in a world where your thoughts are so superior they are accepted as such by others. Do you, by chance, teach at a university, when not online? Regardless, I get it now: You don't have to prove any of your accusations and assertions, all you have to do is construct a well-ordered argument that presents them in a highly articulate fashion. OK. Fine by me. But then I'll have to comment that this is yet another thread where speaking to you has become a complete waste of time...

Bottom line: Can you find me one case of media censorship? And by that, I do not mean cases where you or Mr. Hersh* think the media fell down on the job.

* A brief aside about Hersh and the New Yorker. The magazine is not an unbiased news source, nor does it present itself as such. What that means is that Hersh is not bound by many of the constraints other journalists are. By that, I mean he can quote anonymously more and choose to tell a story from one viewpoint, so to speak. For one, NBC, for example, couldn't publish Hersh's assertions, because they wouldn't have access to his unnamed sources and don't deal in assertions or inference anyway, which Hersh very clearly does. So obviously there will be a difference between his coverage and what you see on television, etc. Regardless, I still think the fact he was able to publish at all torpedoes you're notion of media censorship. Or do the Bush's just not care about The New Yorker?

Bottom line: Can you find me one case of media censorship? Your take on "censorship", which I have been putting in quotes fro that reason, does not cover this.

We have never discussed here, and I have not asserted, the mechanism behind the shortsheeting of major US news media. If it is not censorship, by your (perfectly acceptable) definition, and I agree that is unlikely, so what?


* A brief aside about Hersh and the New Yorker. The magazine is not an unbiased news source, nor does it present itself as such. I believe this is about the fifteenth time you have informed me of something that can be found in one of my earlier posts. I have always contended, here, that Hersh's articles are not part of the major news media in the US.

For one, NBC, for example, couldn't publish Hersh's assertions, because they wouldn't have access to his unnamed sources and don't deal in assertions or inference anyway, which Hersh very clearly does. And of course they can't verify (or debunk) the stuff with their own investigative reportage, or use the stuff that isn't anonymous and is easily checked, or expand the story to its background in the School of the Americas, the SERE training, Gitmo, and Negroponte's fiefdom in CA, because something prevents that.

They can't even fact-check using their reporters in Iraq, where the hundreds of US media reporters and their thousands of Iraqi informants embedded among maybe a dozen prisons and thousands of US soldiers were scooped on a several-months-old sensational story by some elderly scribbler working for a snooty literary magazine from his office in New York.

Again.

What else happened in Iraq that some old guy in New York didn't suss out, do you suppose?

But this is market forces at work, we are told.

Or do the Bush's just not care about The New Yorker? That's a pretty safe bet. Why would they? But not directly relevant.

Your take on "censorship", which I have been putting in quotes for that reason, does not cover this.

We have never discussed here, and I have not asserted, the mechanism behind the shortsheeting of major US news media. If it is not censorship, by your (perfectly acceptable) definition, and I agree that is unlikely, so what?

Huh? You said they were being managed and manipulated and towed the Bush party line, which pretty much amounts to censorship, yet you've been unable to argue for that with anything other than your subjective take on the media's coverage and your own gripes about how stories "played" or how quickly they were covered. All your opinions...


I believe this is about the fifteenth time you have informed me of something that can be found in one of my earlier posts. I have always contended, here, that Hersh's articles are not part of the major news media in the US.

Actually, if you bothered to really read my posts, you'll see I've argued exactly the opposite. The New Yorker, with its tremendous circulation and popularity, is a major news source. What I wrote above is that it is not and has never pretended to be an unbiased news source. There is a difference, you know.


And of course they can't verify (or debunk) the stuff with their own investigative reportage, or use the stuff that isn't anonymous and is easily checked, or expand the story to its background in the School of the Americas, the SERE training, Gitmo, and Negroponte's fiefdom in CA, because something prevents that.

Well, you've read Hersh. A great deal of his sources aren't listed, because for one he's writing in a magazine, which mean his paragraphs don't have to end with he or she said or documents show or all the other things I have to cite as proof in a news story for my paper. So no, they can't easily verify or follow up on his stories. Plus, Hersh makes a lot of editorializations, inferences and connections a normal beat reporter can't make. So those get left out of NBC and The Wall Street Journal.

As for following up, that's the editors choice. But as I will explain below, business usually gets in the way of such decisions. Most organizations cover the tip of the iceberg, to borrow a literary theory from Hemingway, and don't give a toss about the mass floating underneath the water.


They can't even fact-check using their reporters in Iraq, where the hundreds of US media reporters and their thousands of Iraqi informants embedded among maybe a dozen prisons and thousands of US soldiers were scooped on a several-months-old sensational story by some elderly scribbler working for a snooty literary magazine from his office in New York.

I'm not sure you can speculate where Hersh works or how he "scooped" the reporters in Iraq. I tend to think he had to go out in the field. Stories don't usually find people. And I don't suppose you think it's possible he's just better than a lot of other journalists? The man does have something of a track record...


But this is market forces at work, we are told.

In my opinion, it's a combination of market forces, the 24-hour news cycle, laziness, lack of resources and other, more "sexy," stories breaking.

Put simply, the majority of the media usually are pretty terrible about following up on something or delving too deeply, and in most cases, there is nothing more sinister behind this than the fact that something else "breaks" which, like lemmings, they all run to cover. A good book that discusses this at length is James Fallows' How the Media Undermine American Democracy. There's a particular scene in there where much of the White House press corps is sitting about "waiting" for something "big" to happen, rather than using that lull in the day-to-day coverage to do the sort of reporting Hersh, who writes maybe half a dozen stories a year, does. Fallows is critical of them for not being more like Hersh, and so am I. But at the end of the day, it's nothing sinister. It's just the news business.

More recently, news organizations are having to slash their staff, which cuts down on the amount of investigative work they can do significantly...


That's a pretty safe bet. Why would they? But not directly relevant.

Well, they ought to care. Hersh broke a story the rest of the pack media picked up and embarrassed them with. I would think they would worry about that, especially if they are trying to control the media (as all politicians do) and are managing them, which is what has been alleged by you and several others in this thread. I guess they just forgot about Hersh, right? He's only the guy who brole the My Lai massacre and delved into Watergate, though. Why bother with him...

Again, your argument are all your subjective appreciation of the facts, and as such, can't be refuted with facts. You've reached your conclusions, which is fine, and no one is going to talk you out them. So again, I hardly see the point in banging on about this. We disagree. Case closed...

I'm not certain what you are saying is true, but even if it is, there is nothing that says the US military has to let Al Jazeera cover something in a war in a foreign country.

So the US government has the right to deny free media coverage?



I would also hasten to ad that Al Jazeera is hardly "free media," either. Oftentimes, it's a bullhorn for terrorists to get their message out and collects information for them. Maybe that's why American commanders were wary of letting it near their troops...

Have you ever watched Al Jazeera or gone to their website. I don't believe it is a mouthpiece for only anti-US forces, it covers the US side as well. This is what the US media can learn from Al Jazeera.


No matter how you dice it-- the United States MILITARY isn't under any obligation to allow anybody but whomever THEY believe has the best interest of the United States Military in mind. Civilian enterprises are a different story. But the job of the military isn't to further any foreign media organization's desires--whether they be good or bad.

They don't have to further Al Jazeera, but simply allow them to operate to present both sides of the story. Free media is what this is called. Al Jazeera doesn't have an agenda, nor is it pro anti-US forces, it provides customers with the full story (something not common in the US) and lets them make their own stories.



Not surprisingly the United States Military is a bit skittish when it comes to the idea of embedding a muslim news organization within its ranks.

~String

Yet they don't see the problem of embedding themselves within a Muslim country on false pretext, with funding tyrant dictators, and perpetuating civil war.


Perhaps I should have been clearer-- FOREIGN media organization who has, on many occasions, served as the mouth piece to the same enemies that the military is currently fighting (which, it just so happens to also be a Muslim organization... to deny that fact would be to deny the cressent painted elephant in the room).

~String

So if the US government dislikes Muslims, why are they in a Muslim country, denying Muslim audiences far knowledge of the war, and talking about helping Muslims achieve a better life.

The reason why we are pointing this out is because the US likes to paint themselves as nation which strives for the freedom of others, yet even does not allow free media in the US or Iraq or any other place where they have influence. Not to talk about torture, genocide, and use of depleted uranium on Iraq's cities.

If you think Al Jazeera is a legitimate and unbiased news source then there's really nothing I could say that will change your mind at all about the American media, so I'm not going to bother. A horse with blinders can't see the other horses...

Actually, if you bothered to really read my posts, you'll see I've argued exactly the opposite. The New Yorker, with its tremendous circulation and popularity, is a major news source. So make up your mind: can I assume acquaintanceship with the factual, verified content of New Yorker articles, or is all that stuff just my opinion?

It's a monthly magazine. It shouldn't be a "news" source at all. It's like having books as a news source - a symptom of serious trouble with the major media.

Yet Hersh's articles about that months-old and already well-known scandal were in fact news. Scandalous news. Widely reported news, in some ways. And yet somehow the content of Hersh's articles is not part of the mainstream worldview - not even the simple and verifiable facts. Scandalous, newsworthy, but to link to the content of Hersh's articles I would pretty much have to link to Hersh's articles. Just as to link to the more disturbing content of the Taguba report I would have to link to the report itself - not even the NYT summarized the more indicative findings.

And when I retail Hersh's content here - say to the scandalous stuff that would have made good news, that was factual and easily verified and in fact verified thoroughly since publication, but did not fit the administration damage control line - that content is described as merely my opinion, by you. I am arrogant, to assume such tremendously circulated and popularly read - according to you - news, is common knowledge.

Odd, don't you think?

Most organizations cover the tip of the iceberg, to borrow a literary theory from Hemingway, and don't give a toss about the mass floating underneath the water. And so if we see a pattern in the choices of what is "tip" and what is "mass", that's not so wild an observation, is it. It's even a factual observation: we compare facts in Hersh with facts in stories based on Hersh, and we note which of Hersh's facts are left out - the same ones, of the same kinds, as are left out in several other such situations (the Taguba report, the Conyers findings, the House investigations of WMD "intelligence", the Downing Street memo reports, the Lancet Iraqi casualty reports, the various Gitmo sitautions, etc).

Again, your argument are all your subjective appreciation of the facts, and as such, can't be refuted with facts. So that is why you haven't bothered to try, but instead have contented yourself with relabeling my posts "subjective" and "opinion", as if that answered anything.

They could be refuted with facts. They could better be refuted with argument. Neither has been forthcoming, from you. But insult, that we have received.

Note that I provide evidence and argument for my "subjective appreciation". And I haven't done anything as desperate as try to balance off articles in the New Yorker against the content of the major TV, radio, and print news sources in the US, as equivalent news sources.

Well, you've read Hersh. A great deal of his sources aren't listed, - - So no, they can't easily verify or follow up on his stories. The major media all had reporters embedded among soldiers who knew the people Hersh was writing about - reporters with Iraqi sources, people connected to prisoners and relatives and contractors and employees around the prisons - reporters with command access and computer sophistication - people on the ground and at the scene. The story was months old when Hersh got it. The prisons in Iraq were already news in the lefty press. And yet they can't even vet Hersh's basic facts ? That's their excuse for leaving out the ones the administration can't handle ?

Huh? You said they were being managed and manipulated and towed the Bush party line, which pretty much amounts to censorship, Not according to you. I have to deal with you, here, and according to you claims of "censorship" require evidence of deliberate killing of a story by an editor.

I am OK with that restriction, but then I am not talking about censorship, necesarily, in any of this.

Managed and manipulated and coerced and by various mechanisms prevented from discovering or delivering straight news need not have involved deliberate killing of a ready story by anyone, least of all an editor.

We see patterns in the US major media news coverage. They are not really subjective - simple comparison of fact with fact over time reveals the patterns to almost anyone, and leads to the implications even among people who don't believe them (and therefore must find ways of dismissing the facts and comparisons, say by labeling them "opinions" or disparaging their sources).

I think the BBC does a good job of covering both sides of the conflict, dunno about before the war though.

Anyone seen a soldier's coffin on TV lately?

- N

Respect for the dead?

The U.S learnt that from Vietnam. they won't let you see those coffins again.

The media, for which I am no great apologist despite my involvement with it, has not had anything of the sort happen to it. I think your problem is that the amount of "play" certain stories get and the news judgement news organizations use about the stories they choose to pursue. These are quite different than censorship, and any attempt to make them so, is nothing more than gross hyperbole on your part in another of your vain attempts to "prove" some sort of over-arching plan of action, or inaction, where your particular political interests are concerned.

I disagree. Choosing not to cover certain stories and/or giving certain stories very, very limited coverage has the same effect as censorship to the viewing public. Whether a censor or an advertising sponsor or a corporation (that owns the news outlet) chooses not to cover something important, the effect is the same: perceived censorship. If the news item is something important, something that we should know about, and we don't get it from the news source, for whatever reason and by whoever's hand, the effect is censorship.

Respect for the dead?

Banning the showing of soldier's coffins has nothing to do with respect for the dead.

- N

You mean, in your opinion it doesn't...

So make up your mind: can I assume acquaintanceship with the factual, verified content of New Yorker articles, or is all that stuff just my opinion?

It's a monthly magazine. It shouldn't be a "news" source at all. It's like having books as a news source - a symptom of serious trouble with the major media.

Actually, it's a weekly magazine, which means it sells more than 48 million copies a year (I subtract four weeks when they run combined Holiday issues). I never attacked the content of Hersh's stories, I simply said he uses sources that are unnamed, makes inferences and editorializes, none of which an unbiased reporter can do. Are his stories correct? I tend to think they are, but that's not what we're arguing about here. You're upset that the abuses he documented weren't played up and covered by the MSM for weeks or months on end. That's a subjective opinion that has nothing to do with the content of Hersh's stories.



Just as to link to the more disturbing content of the Taguba report I would have to link to the report itself - not even the NYT summarized the more indicative findings.

This is another subjective judgement. You don't think the NYT did a good job, but I think its editors and reporters would sing a different tune.


And when I retail Hersh's content here - say to the scandalous stuff that would have made good news, that was factual and easily verified and in fact verified thoroughly since publication, but did not fit the administration damage control line - that content is described as merely my opinion, by you. I am arrogant, to assume such tremendously circulated and popularly read - according to you - news, is common knowledge.


No, your arrogant to assume that people aware of/familiar with that coverage reach the same conlusions about it as you do and hold the same opinion about its merits and failings. Again, you think your conclusions and judgements are the absolute truth of the matter, when in fact, they're just your opinion.


And so if we see a pattern in the choices of what is "tip" and what is "mass", that's not so wild an observation, is it. It's even a factual observation: we compare facts in Hersh with facts in stories based on Hersh, and we note which of Hersh's facts are left out - the same ones, of the same kinds, as are left out in several other such situations (the Taguba report, the Conyers findings, the House investigations of WMD "intelligence", the Downing Street memo reports, the Lancet Iraqi casualty reports, the various Gitmo sitautions, etc).

I think I've read about all those situations and seen reports on them, again if they are not as developed as you like, that's just your opinion. As for this pattern you see, it's a pattern of your own making. Others aren't obligated to agree with it.


So that is why you haven't bothered to try, but instead have contented yourself with relabeling my posts "subjective" and "opinion", as if that answered anything.

They could be refuted with facts. They could better be refuted with argument. Neither has been forthcoming, from you. But insult, that we have received.

Neither has been forthcoming? I argued with you for pages, and once it became clear that you didn't care about my facts or explanations, or chose to view those facts or explanations in terms of your own choosing, I gave up, pointing out that we just disagreed on what the facts were and weren't likely to be reconciled. What's the point going on? You have offered nothing other than your own inferences, opinions and subjective judgement in this thread. That's all you've done. And I don't agree with the spirit or accuracy of most of them.


Note that I provide evidence and argument for my "subjective appreciation". And I haven't done anything as desperate as try to balance off articles in the New Yorker against the content of the major TV, radio, and print news sources in the US, as equivalent news sources.

Yes, you have provided evidence. But the evidence is not in question. It's the conclusions you draw from that evidence I don't always agree with. Why is that so tough to understand, and why is you think your conclusions are 100 percent correct in every single thread you bother to appear in on this site. Worse, you apparently can't even understand how people can reach other conclusions. Are you that closeminded?


The major media all had reporters embedded among soldiers who knew the people Hersh was writing about - reporters with Iraqi sources, people connected to prisoners and relatives and contractors and employees around the prisons - reporters with command access and computer sophistication - people on the ground and at the scene. The story was months old when Hersh got it. The prisons in Iraq were already news in the lefty press. And yet they can't even vet Hersh's basic facts ? That's their excuse for leaving out the ones the administration can't handle?

Can you prove any of the above? What Lefty press? Did news agencies really waste precious resources and send reporters to hang around prisons? Is Hersh really that bad a reporter?



Not according to you. I have to deal with you, here, and according to you claims of "censorship" require evidence of deliberate killing of a story by an editor. I am OK with that restriction, but then I am not talking about censorship, necesarily, in any of this.

OK, good.


Managed and manipulated and coerced and by various mechanisms prevented from discovering or delivering straight news need not have involved deliberate killing of a ready story by anyone, least of all an editor.

Documentation please? Or am I supposed to gleam the "pattern" you speak so often of from the babble?


We see patterns in the US major media news coverage.

You see patterns in the US coverage. Other see different patterns or none at all. And still more are like that fellow in Beautiful Mind and invent patterns where there are none...


They are not really subjective

Yes, they are.


...Comparison of fact with fact over time reveals the patterns to almost anyone, and leads to the implications even among people who don't believe them (and therefore must find ways of dismissing the facts and comparisons, say by labeling them "opinions" or disparaging their sources).

I've seen no such comparison of fact with fact anywhere in this thread by you or anyone who thinks as you do. All I see is comparisions of claims against claims, with little or no supporting evidence. Typically, you say things like people tow the administration line, talk about one or two specific stories and then offer your appreciation of how those stories are covered. With one exception, the Hersh peice, which I think has since been shown to be a bad choice on your part, you don't document how those stories were manipulated at all.

Again, this is pointless. You don't like how things are covered. Fine. I would agree with you that the media does a piss-poor job more often than it does a good job, but the difference is I don't think it has anything to do with politics, management, censorship or conspiracy...

You mean, in your opinion it doesn't...

Uh, no, it has to do with not trying to lower morale and have the people call an end to the war. It's already been said why by the White House.

- N

Really? Then find that statement and post it here...