Military Uses Networks to Spread Misinformation

[ASsman]

(In related news, American News outlets stanby while they are breast-fed Misinformation)

The U.S. military is reportedly distributing misinformation to the media as part of a campaign of psychological operations. The Los Angeles Times uncovered how the military sent spokespersons to major news networks to deliberately lie about military operations in Iraq in an effort to deceive the Iraqi resistance. We speak with retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. The U.S. military is reportedly distributing misinformation to the media as part of a campaign of psychological operations. This according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. The paper has uncovered incidents where the military has sent spokespersons to major news networks to deliberately lie about military operations in Iraq in an effort to deceive the Iraqi resistance.

In one case, on Oct. 14, a Marine spokesperson appeared on CNN from Fallujah and said "Troops crossed the line of departure." CNN was soon reporting the battle for Fallujah had begun. In fact it wouldn't begin for another three weeks.

A senior Pentagon official told CNN that Gilbert's remarks were "technically true but misleading." It was an attempt to get CNN "to report something not true," the official said. The military claimed it wanted to see how Iraqi fighters responded to the so-called news report.

Several top officials told the LA Times that they see a danger of blurring what are supposed to be well-defined lines between the stated mission of military public affairs and psychological and information operations. One senior defense official told the paper "The movement of information has gone from the public affairs world to the psychological operations world. What's at stake is the credibility of people in uniform."

* Col. Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force Colonel. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, AirWar College and Naval War College.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/02/1513248
(waiting on transcript)

[Qdrop]

sounds like a sound expirement to me.

they want to see if the Iraq resistance is using up-to-the-moment american cable news reports to plan their defenses.

if so, the military needs to be weary of this and react accordingly.

[100% ILL]

It is an excellent strategy,certainly not a new one.

[Whois]

First rule of journalism - All governments lie.

[ASsman]

Pff, who told you that? The Government? ... haha!

[Ace42]

It is an excellent strategy,certainly not a new one.

A strategy which misinforms the vast majority of the US public. Thus it is an "excellent strategy" akin to nuking Iraq flat, US soldiers and all.

Also a strategy used by "Pravda" [truth] the Commie propoganda news letter. US again stealing ideas.

[Echewta]

I see nothing wrong with that. Up to the journalist to prove it true.

[Ace42]

I see nothing wrong with that. Up to the journalist to prove it true.

They can't. The US bombs anyone who isn't being spoonfed their info by the US military, and often those who are too.

[100% ILL]

A strategy which misinforms the vast majority of the US public. Thus it is an "excellent strategy" akin to nuking Iraq flat, US soldiers and all.

Also a strategy used by "Pravda" [truth] the Commie propoganda news letter. US again stealing ideas.

It is unimportant where the idea came from, only that it is used effectively. It's not misinformation if you admit it later with an explanation, such as to determine how the insurgents are getting information so we can exploit it and achieve victory.

[Ace42]

It is unimportant where the idea came from, only if it is used effectively.

Apply that to genocide.

It's not misinformation if you admit it later

Like a month after an election? Or ten years after an illegal war? Or a lifetime after you are responsible for murdering 100,000 people for oil?

[100% ILL]

Apply that to genocide.

Like a month after an election? Or ten years after an illegal war? Or a lifetime after you are responsible for murdering 100,000 people for oil?

We weren't talking of genocide. Strategy is important in any military operation and victory is the ultimate goal. It was a simple diversion.

[Ace42]

We weren't talking of genocide. Strategy is important in any military operation and victory is the ultimate goal. It was a simple diversion.

A diversion based on American soil which effected many more american citizens than insurgents. By that argument, burning piles of innocent US civilians would be a "valid tactic" due to its divisionary capabilities.

"Hyuck, we mortared our own base flat to lull them into a false sense of security"

Pshaw.

[100% ILL]

A diversion based on American soil which effected many more american citizens than insurgents. By that argument, burning piles of innocent US civilians would be a "valid tactic" due to its divisionary capabilities.

"Hyuck, we mortared our own base flat to lull them into a false sense of security"

Pshaw.


I admit you made me chuckle on this one. The "effect" on american citizens was minimal at best. No one was hurt. Mortaring your own base is a little extreme. The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to achieve the desired result.........not genocide by the way.

[ASsman]

It's not misinformation if you admit it later with an explanation
So it's not a lie if I tell the truth afterward.... That makes as much sense as "Jews for Jesus".


mis·in·form Audio pronunciation of "misinformation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (msn-fôrm)
tr.v. mis·in·formed, mis·in·form·ing, mis·in·forms

To provide with incorrect information.


Says nothing of this definition becoming null and void once the correct information is provided.

Also, OF COURSE CORRECT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED... How else would you know it was misinformation... God.

The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news.
Or commit war crimes. Effectively.

[Ace42]

I admit you made me chuckle on this one. The "effect" on american citizens was minimal at best. No one was hurt. Mortaring your own base is a little extreme. The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to achieve the desired result.........not genocide by the way.

"No-one was hurt" - Well, thousands of innocent people in Fallujah were hurt, but aside from this the US public, any of them who were watching CNN, were hurt.

Being lied to by your news sources is a great offence. It is like the government saying "Oh, we didn't think it was in your best interests to tell you who actually won the election."

Secrecy, and lying to the public are two very different things. How can you trust a word the US army (and by extension, and news article released by the US army, especially those aired on CNN) says again?

"We went into Falljuah today"
"We didn't use illegal weapons."

Why think they would lie about one but not the other? Particularly considering the much higher gravity related to the latter.

All this does is prove that the US army are perjurors, and that you cannot trust a damned thing they say. Not exactly a surprise to most of us, but I am sure there are many posters here who still believe that if the US army released a news article, it is God's own truth.

[100% ILL]

[QUOTE=ASsman]So it's not a lie if I tell the truth afterward.... That makes as much sense as "Jews for Jesus".


Diversion- an attack or feint that draws the attention and force ofa an enemy from the point of principal operation. To Deviate



to tell CNN we're attacking tomorrow and then you don't do it. How could they?

[ASsman]

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We are joined on the phone by Colonel Sam Gardiner. He's a retired Air Force colonel. He's taught strategy and military operations at National Air War College and Naval War College. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

SAM GARDINER: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to this latest report?

SAM GARDINER: Well it's actually more of the same. Interesting to me that people would pick up on this right now because it was so pervasive before and during Gulf 2. This is just a small incident compared to what we have seen before. The real distinction, however, is in the past, most of these falsehoods, psychological operations, strategic communications, themes came from civilians. This is one of the first times when a military officer has actually and visibly crossed the line. And that's a big deal because the military is the only profession I know where lying is a criminal offense. In the uniform code of military justice, it is a court martial offense for an officer to tell a lie. And frankly, this lieutenant who talked to CNN is subjected himself to potential court martial.

AMY GOODMAN: Last night, watching FOX, the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich basically said whatever it takes to protect our troops.

SAM GARDINER: But Amy, we are supposed to be protecting democracy. The troops have taken an oath to protect democracy. And if we destroy democracy to protect the troops, something's gone terribly wrong. I think--I couldn't disagree more with Newt Gingrich. The other part of that, Amy, is as a former officer, this just is sort of goes to my essence. And that's the notion that an officer's word is his bond. Whether he is speaking to the troops, to other officers, or in public. When we cross the line, when you begin to not be able to trust the word of an officer, we have begun to destroy the military from within.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain this idea of psy-ops, psychological operations, how it's used abroad and what's happening now at home?

SAM GARDINER: Well, Amy, this has a very long tradition in the U.S. Military and in militaries in the world which is the notion that you use bad information or distorted information to target the enemy. Up until probably about 15 years ago, that notion was meant that it would be done on the battlefield. It became a growing idea within the military of a thing called information warfare which was sort of the concept that you would bring it outside the battlefield. And what's happened, and this is what's so serious, is that it has now been taken into the public airways and we can't tell whether or not we are getting the truth from the military or psychological operations. And I have to say frankly, I think, and again I would very strongly disagree with Newt Gingrich, because you don't have to--let's say that this is a valid notion, we wanted the bad guys in Fallujah to think we were coming early. That doesn't have to permeate and distort the worldwide media for that message to get across. That's the kind of thing that you deliver locally. They aren't communicating with the world. If you want to do it by attacks, if you want to do it, by leaflets, that's fine. But don't put it on CNN for all of us to hear.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think should happen right now about this information? I mean, the military at least in this report, being quite clear about what they are doing. That psychological operations is their new approach here at home and abroad. Or not their new approach, as you have pointed out in your own report on the analysis of stories that came out of Iraq from the military that were simply psy-ops, not true, going right to Jessica Lynch.

SAM GARDINER: I think the U.S. military ought not to be allowed to tell other than the truth to the media. The military has no business being in the strategic communications deception business. Let me just give you an example of what ought not to happen. There is, from the special operations command in Florida, an ad on the web right now for P.R. Firms to come and bid a proposal, do government work, so that they can do media operations that have a psychological dimension that, and I will quote the document, to be broadcast worldwide. Amy, the military ought not to do that. You know, this is the kind of thing that politicians do and in fact that was the way the administration controlled the message in the war was to send politicians down to do it. But when the guys in uniform begin to tell untruths, we have problems.

AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Sam Gardiner, I want to thank you for being with us. Colonel Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel. Thank you very much.

[ASsman]

to tell CNN we're attacking tomorrow and then you don't do it. How could they?

....... So it's ok as long as it's justified. Wait don't they lie becuase they have something to gain from it... So it their eyes it's always justified. So it's fine, nice job.

[Ace42]

Diversion- an attack or feint that draws the attention and force ofa an enemy from the point of principal operation. To Deviate

to tell CNN we're attacking tomorrow and then you don't do it. How could they?

Except that by saying "We are going to attack Fallujah tomorrow" will draw the attention to fallujah. Which they then attacked, 3 weeks after tell the enemy that.

Great feint! I would've been totally dummied. What with being told a military operation was on the way, and then a little later than expected it came. Wow, boy. Shure caught me off guard. I mean here we are, knowing that the enemy are coming to our only stronghold, and then they are a bit late. Doh, and we sent all of our guys to the beach!

If only I had been in the US psy-ops corps, I would've KNOWN that If an enemy doesn't turn up on the exact day their news (that no insurgents were watching) says so, you DON'T THROW A PARTY!

Feh. Not exactly tricksy, is it?

[infidel]

It's going a bit further than denying the insurgence intelligence, they're also altering the news to save face.
How many of you knew that as of today Baghdad is an isolated city, that the insurgents control all the roads in and out except for the dangerous airport road?
US media says nothing but the Arab media is awash with it today.

[Jasonik]

I think it was pretty nice of our military to give civilians 3 weeks to flee before we actually attacked.

[ASsman]

Off-topic.

[ASsman]

I admit you made me chuckle on this one. The "effect" on american citizens was minimal at best. No one was hurt. Mortaring your own base is a little extreme. The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to achieve the desired result.........not genocide by the way.
Emebedded reporters are under a tight leash, it's not that hard to keep things a secret from them. All other reporters are banned from certain areas unless embedded .. etc.

[Ace42]

I think it was pretty nice of our military to give civilians 3 weeks to flee before we actually attacked.

Or 3 weeks to go back in, if 100% Ill's case is to be believed and the deception actually worked. And that the insurgents were watching.

[Qdrop]

Holy fucking chist.....

what a strawman.....

ace and ass are so fuckin off base......
i don't think i have ever seen such a blatant attempt to twist an event into something it's not.....
what polititians.....


did anyone notice how ace jumped to "nuking" and "genocide" in like 2 posts?

the fuck is that?

the american military is checking to see how dependant the enemy is on american newsreports for military stategy.....and suddenly (according to ace) we on par with Hitler.

what a fucking idiot.

the public does not have a right to know everything immediantly, if it's at the expense of military stategy.....
a line must be drawn. .......

[100% ILL]

Or 3 weeks to go back in, if 100% Ill's case is to be believed and the deception actually worked. And that the insurgents were watching.

Okay, okay, I am not unreasonable, the transcript Assman provided was insiteful, and I will admit that annnouncing false information on international news was not the thing to do. They most likely could have achieved the same goal by broadcasting locally. I concede that the military is not justified in their actions.
I do get the impression Ace that at this point in time you have anti- American sentiments and your sympathies lie with whomever is against us. I don't fully understand why you think the insurgents are right or better.

[Qdrop]

I do get the impression Ace that at this point in time you have anti- American sentiments and your sympathies lie with whomever is against us. I don't fully understand why you think the insurgents are right or better.

that's Ace in a nutshell......you should realize that by now.

Ace would take the side Hitler, if he was alive and attacking the U.S.

[100% ILL]

that's Ace in a nutshell......you should realize that by now.

Ace would take the side Hitler, if he was alive and attacking the U.S.

Ace is often, if not always highly critical of the U.S. I do not take it personally, because he's not an American;but Assman and several others are and they hold the same view. I have a harder time understanding their anti-American sentiments. They enjoy our freedoms and way of life and yet they continually bad-mouth our country.

[Qdrop]

They enjoy our freedoms and way of life and yet they continually bad-mouth our country.

yes.....that's called hyp-oc-racy.....



a true patriot questions.....i believe that.
a true patriot should look for change within there borders.....i believe that too.
but a true patrtiot should never forget were they come from.....and who feeds them.

you can hate your parents......but they are still you parents...and you better have their back when it comes down to it.
blood is thicker than blasphemy....

they suck on their mother's tit....while they slash at her belly.

[100% ILL]

I know you do not agree with Biblical principles, but your statement reminded me of a verse in Proverbs 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor. Seems to hold some validity in this instance.

[racer5.0stang]

Well since man evolved from monkeys, should we be evolving for the better and not for the worse of society and mankind?

[100% ILL]

Thank God for the opposable thumb. (y)

[Ace42]

I don't fully understand why you think the insurgents are right or better.

Urm, because they haven't gone into someone else's country and murdered 100,000 innocent civillians? Because they are fighting for freedom and independance in their own country?

Because the insurgents haven't been using illegal weapons?

The list goes on and on.

I have anti-American sentiments? Revise let's tighten that up a bit. I have anti-exploitative, anti-war-crime, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-corruption, anti-ignorance, anti-homophobic, anti-gun, anti-racist, anti-slavery sentiments.

And at present, I guess that makes me anti-American. If the cap fits...

[Qdrop]

Well since man evolved from monkeys, should we be evolving for the better and not for the worse of society and mankind?

we didn't evolve from monkeys.....both man and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor....a simian primate.
know what you're talking about before you criticize.


the problem is that we are out-thinking ourselves.
we are still victim to our animal instincts.....yet wield such creative mental power that it can be so tragically destructive.

perhaps we evolved too fast.....or too slow, depending on how you look at it.
time will tell.

[Qdrop]

Urm, because they haven't gone into someone else's country and murdered 100,000 innocent civillians? Because they are fighting for freedom and independance in their own country?

Because the insurgents haven't been using illegal weapons?

The list goes on and on.

I have anti-American sentiments? Revise let's tighten that up a bit. I have anti-exploitative, anti-war-crime, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-corruption, anti-ignorance, anti-homophobic, anti-gun, anti-racist, anti-slavery sentiments.

And at present, I guess that makes me anti-American. If the cap fits...

yet ACe never seems to take a hard look at his own country...or it's past.

[100% ILL]

Seeing as how the New Iraqi government is a democracy, any wepon the insurgents use is an illegal one, as they are fighting against their own government. If anyone was exploitative of the Iraqi people it was Saddam. Isn't the UK capitalist?

[Ace42]

yet ACe never seems to take a hard look at his own country...or it's past.

Fourthly, Winston Churchill advocated the gassing of the Kurds only 60 years earlier.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=477804&postcount=37

But, it is interesting to note, that the bombing of Dresden was *not* and is not legitimised by current historians, and that bomb-wing was the only one not to receive key flying medals out of the entire RAF.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=376928&postcount=15

Yeah, I never criticise the English government or refer to the nefarious shit they have got up to...

And atrocities commited 60 years ago+ (before the most recent geneva conventions came into force and were ratified by the UK or the US) totally legitimise the US doing them now.

Qdrop, once again you pass off your opinion about me as fact, and once again you are proved wrong. Like thinking you could forumluate me with your pop-psych "He has a chip on his shoulder because he is in a wheelchair!" crap.

Blatantly wrong, but you still haven't learned that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I take a peek at one of your posts, to give you the benefit of the doubt after other (and less experienced) posters here sucking you cock, and what do I see? No change what so ever. Same old self-important and ill-informed asshole. Just face it, I am beyond your fathoming, as is pretty much everything I have to say. Hey, perhaps you can pretend I am GMSisko, then you might actually be able to make some shit stick, and not seem like an opinionated prick.

Funny how a thread about the military becomes a thread about me again. Guess being on my ignore list makes people fixate. Sorry, Qdrop, no offence, but I just don't bend that way. Feel free to keep on talking about me though, if it helps you cope.

Well, back to ignoring you I go. Try not to get to despondant when I don't take notice of your pathetic and ill-founded jibes.

Also, 100% Ill, don't quote the troll.

[Schmeltz]

I say, 100% Ill, when did Iraq hold the elections that put Allawi's government in power? I had thought there were to be no elections until next year. You also seem to be unaware that the Iraqi insurgency is fighting the American occupation - the legality of which is dubious at best, the beneficence of which is totally nonexistent, and the unabashed cruelty and destructiveness of which is legendary even after less than two years. Don't pretend you wouldn't do the same if your country was subject to the kind of rape the American army has inflicted on Iraq.

[Ace42]

Seeing as how the New Iraqi government is a democracy, any wepon the insurgents use is an illegal one, as they are fighting against their own government. If anyone was exploitative of the Iraqi people it was Saddam. Isn't the UK capitalist?

It is not "their government" any more than the UK monarchy is your government. That is what freedom fighting is about. The New Iraq is not a democracy, as there have been no votes. Even when the elections do happen, it is unlikely they will be fair, considering there is likely to be an almost total boycott by all of the 41 main opposition parties, and Rumsfeld has already stated that having a quater of the population unable to vote because of "security risks" is perfectly acceptable. Disbarring a quater of voters is not democracy in any meaningful sense.

The government was not elected, it was instituted by the US. Furthermore, they are attacking the US army, again NOT *THEIR* GOVERNMENT.

The Iraqi insurgents using guns on their oppressors / occupiers (The US army) is no more illegal than the US were when they succeeded from the empire.

Illegal weapons are those proscribed by the geneva and hague conventions. These include certain chemical and biological agents, nuclear weapons, etc.

AKs and RPGs do not qualify as "illegal weapons" as they are compliant with the "laws of war" - and combatants are entitled to use them in conflict with either a foreign aggressor (the US army) OR a domestic enemy. For example the laws of war apply to a civil war as well as an international one.

Thus, the current Iraqi government (in its military capacity) is a valid military target.

[100% ILL]

It's interesting that you use the term "freedom fighting" in association with the insurgents seeing as how their form of governing is anything but based on freedom. Women have little to no rights in their theocratical government, and anyone who is not in line with their beliefs is a candidate for the death penalty. At the least the U.S is giving them the opprotunity for diversity, which they apparantly do not want (insurgents).
Of course I can't see how you would be opposed to the chance at freedom as opposed to the insurgents barbaric methods of control. They torture and murder innocent people who are not even fighting them, then they hide in citizens homes to blend in. Cowards to a man

[Qdrop]

Yeah, I never criticise the English government or refer to the nefarious shit they have got up to...


so you just hate every established gov't that doesn't conform to you way thinking?

why don't you just concentrate on your own countries ills before commenting on ours then.
you know....."clean up your own backyard" and all that.


Qdrop, once again you pass off your opinion about me as fact, and once again you are proved wrong. Like thinking you could forumluate me with your pop-psych "He has a chip on his shoulder because he is in a wheelchair!" crap.


hey...you wrote that. it just fit your profile.
can't help if you have a habit of lying about your physical abilities or handicaps.
but yet, I'M the liar....
hmmmmm......


I take a peek at one of your posts, to give you the benefit of the doubt after other (and less experienced) posters here sucking you cock,



of course you did......you miss me.
and you will again.


and what do I see? No change what so ever. Same old self-important and ill-informed asshole.

this from Ace....wow.
"hey kettle......it's pot.....yer black!"


Just face it, I am beyond your fathoming, as is pretty much everything I have to say.

Wow....i'll just let everyone else tear that apart.
that's just too easy.......


Funny how a thread about the military becomes a thread about me again.

you make yourself a target.
and you LOVE the attention....you know it.


Well, back to ignoring you I go. Try not to get to despondant when I don't take notice of your pathetic and ill-founded jibes.

you'll be back.......we both know it.
you are such a coward.....making retorts then ignoring so you can't see the reply.....
i cry.....i cry....

[Ace42]

It's interesting that you use the term "freedom fighting" in association with the insurgents seeing as how their form of governing is anything but based on freedom.

"Their form of government" - the insurgents are fighting to get the US out. What "form of government" do you think they espouse? Considering they are diverse individuals, I can't see how you can generalise. I think you are making assumptions about what they stand for, without actually knowing the first thing about them. Also, whatever government they are fighting for, that is their choice. The government the US government institutes is NOT their choice, and therefor that is considerably LESS free.

Women have little to no rights in their theocratical government, and anyone who is not in line with their beliefs is a candidate for the death penalty.

That's Iran, but nice try.

At the least the U.S is giving them the opprotunity for diversity, which they apparantly do not want (insurgents).
Of course I can't see how you would be opposed to the chance at freedom as opposed to the insurgents barbaric methods of control. They torture and murder innocent people who are not even fighting them, then they hide in citizens homes to blend in. Cowards to a man

As opposed to the brave US soldiers, firing missiles at them from afar, and cutting down unarmed civillians as they flee from their flattened homes.

The insurgents have no "methods of control" as they have never BEEN in control in order to maintain it. And the US has not given them "the chance of freedom" - the Allawi government (which is adopting Saddam's policies left right and centre) has reinstituted the death penalty, and the country is in a state of martial law, which gives them carte blanche to eliminate and imprison anyone they want.

Barbaric methods of control? It is the US that is using Napalm on civillians, not the insurgents.

[100% ILL]

"Their form of government" - the insurgents are fighting to get the US out. What "form of government" do you think they espouse? Considering they are diverse individuals, I can't see how you can generalise. I think you are making assumptions about what they stand for, without actually knowing the first thing about them. Also, whatever government they are fighting for, that is their choice. The government the US government institutes is NOT their choice, and therefor that is considerably LESS free.

That's Iran, but nice try.

As opposed to the brave US soldiers, firing missiles at them from afar, and cutting down unarmed civillians as they flee from their flattened homes.

The insurgents have no "methods of control" as they have never BEEN in control in order to maintain it. And the US has not given them "the chance of freedom" - the Allawi government (which is adopting Saddam's policies left right and centre) has reinstituted the death penalty, and the country is in a state of martial law, which gives them carte blanche to eliminate and imprison anyone they want.

Barbaric methods of control? It is the US that is using Napalm on civillians, not the insurgents.

Yes the beheadings are no indication of the kind of control methods they seek to implement. I'm sure if they succeeded it would be ice-cream for everyone!!
I know you just can't help being difficult and argumentative, but then Your apologetic view of the insurgents and their methods of attempted control and cohersion lead me to believe you hold true sympathy for them, or at least believe in their struggle.

[racer5.0stang]

why can't all the monkeys get along?

[Qdrop]

why can't all the monkeys get along?

because of religion.

[Ace42]

Yes the beheadings are no indication of the kind of control methods they seek to implement. I'm sure if they succeded it would be ice-cream for everyone!

Half a dozen beheadings are nowhere near the same league as burning hundreds of people alive. If the napalming is indicative of the methods the US seek to implement, then they are hundreds of times worse than the people doing the beheading.

I know you just can't help being difficult and argumentative,

Call me old fashioned, but when people spout off ill-conceived nonsense, I feel obliged to call bullshit on it.

but then Your apologetic view of the insurgents and their methods of attempted control and cohersion lead me to believe you hold true sympathy for them, or at least believe in their struggle.

Their methods are substantially less brutal than those employed by the US military.

For the SECOND time, they do not "control" anything.

And I hold the same sympathy for them as I do for the US revolutionaries who gained the independance. It is just a shame that through inbreeding, corruption, pig-headed arrogance, or quite possibly too much lead in the water, the US has turned its back on the ideologies it was founded on, and replaced them with patriotic flag waving, bible-thumping and double-standards.

Why would I not believe in their struggle? They have had their country invaded by a tyrannical, evil, and sadistic enemy (that's the US, incase you are too naive to appreciate this) and are doing their best to get them out.

What, precisely, is wrong with this?

[racer5.0stang]

because of religion.

I didn't know monkeys had religion.

[racer5.0stang]

Half a dozen beheadings are nowhere near the same league as burning hundreds of people alive. If the napalming is indicative of the methods the US seek to implement, then they are hundreds of times worse than the people doing the beheading.



Call me old fashioned, but when people spout off ill-conceived nonsense, I feel obliged to call bullshit on it.



Their methods are substantially less brutal than those employed by the US military.

For the SECOND time, they do not "control" anything.

And I hold the same sympathy for them as I do for the US revolutionaries who gained the independance. It is just a shame that through inbreeding, corruption, pig-headed arrogance, or quite possibly too much lead in the water, the US has turned its back on the ideologies it was founded on, and replaced them with patriotic flag waving, bible-thumping and double-standards.

Why would I not believe in their struggle? They have had their country invaded by a tyrannical, evil, and sadistic enemy (that's the US, incase you are too naive to appreciate this) and are doing their best to get them out.

What, precisely, is wrong with this?

The U.S.A. was founded by patriotic, flag waving, bible-thumping people.

Done any good fox hunting lately?

[Qdrop]

I didn't know monkeys had religion.


we're not monkeys. though we are primates.

once again:


we didn't evolve from monkeys.....both man and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor....a simian primate.
know what you're talking about before you criticize.

[Ace42]

The U.S.A. was founded by patriotic, flag waving, bible-thumping people.


No it wasn't. If they were patriotic, they would not have left their country to create a new one. They could not have waved a flag before the country existed. The founding fathers were quite clear on the importance of seperating religion and government.

Stop making shit up. I know you WANT it to be true, but that doesn't MAKE it true.

[100% ILL]

Naive? That's a bit low. I prefer Bible-thumper at least then you're half right. I have knowledge of your view, I simply do not agree with it. America is not oppresive and evil as you say. Whenever a country has much power, others are always hyper-critical of how that country uses that power. Hitler whom you seemed to enjoy aglining yourself with sought to erradicate an entire people. He burned their books and then he burned them. By removing Saddam we may have created a temporary vaccum, and a slight power imbalance, but that in no way places us in the same group with Hitler and Stalin.

[racer5.0stang]

No it wasn't. If they were patriotic, they would not have left their country to create a new one. They could not have waved a flag before the country existed. The founding fathers were quite clear on the importance of seperating religion and government.

Stop making shit up. I know you WANT it to be true, but that doesn't MAKE it true.

Oh, my bad Master Ace. Apparently the country that was left wasn't so great to begin with. But hey, you can't trust a monkey or primate or ape.

[Ace42]

America is not oppresive and evil as you say.

What do you call it when you break your own treaties by using weapons the rest of the world refuses to use on the grounds that they are "too inhumane" and cause "incomparable suffering" ?

What do you call it when you go into another country, tell them who is going to be their leader, burn to death anyone who doesn't like it, and lock up in prison anyone who says they don't like it?

What do you call it when you go invading defenceless countries to steal their resources?

Evil and oppressive are the two main words that spring to mind.

Hitler whom you seemed to enjoy aglining yourself with sought to erradicate an entire people. He burned their books and then he burned them. By removing Saddam we may have created a temporary vaccum, and a slight power imbalance, but that in no way places us in the same group with Hitler and Stalin.

And yet the US managed to wipe out a quater of the population of Vietnam through its intervention. They burnt more people than can be counted, alive. The US outlawed communist literature, and communist literature is still ilelgal (although the law is no longer enforced) in Louisianna.

The US has embarked on imperialistic wars, has accused anyone who dissents of being traitors, and imprisoned (and executed in Iraq) anyone who disagrees.

And "temporary" - It was mission accomplished over a year ago. The only reason it is will not be permanent is because the US is busily annhilating anyone who disagrees with their way of doing things. If the US wins, the peace will be the same peace as would've been achieved if Hitler won.

[100% ILL]

What do you call it when you break your own treaties by using weapons the rest of the world refuses to use on the grounds that they are "too inhumane" and cause "incomparable suffering" ?

What do you call it when you go into another country, tell them who is going to be their leader, burn to death anyone who doesn't like it, and lock up in prison anyone who says they don't like it?

What do you call it when you go invading defenceless countries to steal their resources?

Evil and oppressive are the two main words that spring to mind.



And yet the US managed to wipe out a quater of the population of Vietnam through its intervention. They burnt more people than can be counted, alive. The US outlawed communist literature, and communist literature is still ilelgal (although the law is no longer enforced) in Louisianna.

The US has embarked on imperialistic wars, has accused anyone who dissents of being traitors, and imprisoned (and executed in Iraq) anyone who disagrees.

And "temporary" - It was mission accomplished over a year ago. The only reason it is will not be permanent is because the US is busily annhilating anyone who disagrees with their way of doing things. If the US wins, the peace will be the same peace as would've been achieved if Hitler won.
If we annhilate everyone who opposes us I guess Canada better duck and cover. Hitler did not want peace, he wanted to establish a world dominating government that would last 1,000 years.
How do you conclude that we are oppressing the Iraqi people? Sure we oppress the insurgents, that's what tends to happen in war. As far as the people themselves we are providing them an opprotunity to have a democracy for the first time in their lives; and like a big brother we are helping them to secure that right until they can adequately defend themselves. With any birth there's bound to be some blood.

[Schmeltz]

Your minimization of the chaos in Iraq - a vicious, horrible, anarchic instability that none of the posters here could possibly endure for long - as a "temporary vacuum" and a "slight imbalance" just serves to illustrate how completely detached from reality you are, man. If I treated my little brother like that he'd stab me in my sleep, or worse. It would be funny if real people weren't actually dying by the hundreds and thousands in the name of a freedom they'll never see.

[Ace42]

Hitler did not want peace, he wanted to establish a world dominating government that would last 1,000 years.

He wasn't fighting war for war's sake, he waged war to remold the world in a way that was more satisfactory for him and people like him. That is exactly what Bush is doing.

How do you conclude that we are oppressing the Iraqi people?

Abu Ghraib was full of civillian prisoners, NOT insurgents. Most of them innocent. A BBC translator was locked up in there recently because he told a jailor that a friend of his in there was arrested erroneously. "He didn't do anything!" "Only a criminal would attest to the innocence of someone in jail, GET HIM!"

Also forcing a puppet government on them, killing hundreds of thousands of them, depriving them of resources, etc, and locking up or murdering anyone who doesn't role over and take it in the ass.

As far as the people themselves we are providing them an opprotunity to have a democracy for the first time in their lives; and like a big brother we are helping them to secure that right until they can adequately defend themselves. With any birth there's bound to be some blood.

Except there is no opportunity for democracy whatsoever. Except for the current US puppet government, everyone intends to boycott the elections. Furthermore a QUATER, that's 1 out of every 4, people will not get a chance to vote. Those are just out of the people not murdered. And you are not "helping" them secure anything. You are forcing them to submit to your will. That is oppression.

The idea that the US, who can't even run a satisfactory election on their own soil, can export democracy to anyone else is farcical in itself.

And "secure themselves" - secure themselves from whom? "Secure themselves from themselves" ? That's OPPRESSION. These insurgents aren't a bunch of foreigners, they are Iraqis who don't want what you guys are forcing on them. That is not FREEDOM. That is the antithesis of freedom.

You really think that if the Iraqis all voted Saddam back in the US would say "oh, ok, we're sorry, here, kill 100,000 of us, we'll pay you shitloads in reparations, and put everything back as good as new?"

Bullshit. Just like they aren't going to accept or permit any result which doesn't involve a US friendly puppet government that will let the oil flow.

Didn't you wonder why all these people will rise up against the powerful Saddam ousting US, but they couldn't do so against Saddam himself?

Simple, it is worse under the US than it was under Saddam.

How would you feel if a super-power that dwarfed the US came into your country, repeated the WTC disaster about 33 times over and worse, then instituted a new government, told you *it is for your own good* and that anyone who shoots the people doing this are *criminals* and that this resistance legitimises any atrocity they want to commit against your countrymen? What if they then tried to justify this by saying "well, it is better than just leaving your corrupt government in power, isn't it?" Now what if one of the first buildings they seized was Fort Knox?

You wouldn't and couldn't take the shit the US is dishing out, and it is gross hypocrisy to sit back and say "well, it is good for them."

[100% ILL]

Your minimization of the chaos in Iraq - a vicious, horrible, anarchic instability that none of the posters here could possibly endure for long - as a "temporary vacuum" and a "slight imbalance" just serves to illustrate how completely detached from reality you are, man. If I treated my little brother like that he'd stab me in my sleep, or worse. It would be funny if real people weren't actually dying by the hundreds and thousands in the name of a freedom they'll never see.

Hundreds and thousands died under Saddams rule with no freedom in sight at all.

[Ace42]

Hundreds and thousands died under Saddams rule with no freedom in sight at all.

300,000 in 30 years. And that if you believe the US "bullshit" figures. Considerably less if you believe people who aren't known perjurors.

The US has managed 100,000 in the last two, and in the previous war, the same.

So, all it takes is for this to continue for another two years, or for the US to come back again just once some time in the next 20 years, and the US will have been worse than Saddam.

If you work it out in terms of scale, 50 Saddams would've caused less destruction than the US has.

US is like Saddam but 50 times worse, AND STILL NO FREEDOM IN SIGHT AT ALL.

At least under Saddam, they had clean water, nice food, electricity, TV, computers, etc.

[100% ILL]

Yes and under British rule American colonists had it wonderful to, but we just had a desire to govern ourselves and be free from the Monarchy and form a Republic which reminds me, what form of government is the UK now? I guess we must have been on to something.

[Ace42]

Yes and under British rule American colonists had it wonderful to, but we just had a desire to govern ourselves and be free from the Monarchy and form a Republic which reminds me, what form of government is the UK now? I guess we must have been on to something.

The UK had a commonwealth after the civil war, which resulted in Charles the first's head being removed. That was several generations before the Mayflower even set sail. The parliamentary system thus predates American colonisation, even if you choose to only start counting after the house of Lords and the Monarchy were neutred.

[100% ILL]

So I stand corrected

[racer5.0stang]

This is completely off topic.

There is a T.V. show called Maury. This guy is having 14 and 15 year old kids coming on the show who have had babies and he is giving them faternity tests to determine the father.

What is this world coming to.

[100% ILL]

This is completely off topic.

There is a T.V. show called Maury. This guy is having 14 and 15 year old kids coming on the show who have had babies and he is giving them faternity tests to determine the father.

What is this world coming to.


An End

[Schmeltz]

Two thousand years ago people - by which I mean everybody - used to entertain themselves by going to watch other people being killed in the most gruesome, twisted fashions you can imagine, and probably a few that you can't. Violence and bloodshed was something you walked past every day on the street, not something you saw on the news from the comfort of your armchair. What's this world coming to? I don't know, but I know where it's been, and it's been a lot worse places than Maury and Jerry Springer.

Which isn't to say those shows aren't total garbage.

[Ace42]

An End

Heard that before.

[racer5.0stang]

Two thousand years ago people - by which I mean everybody - used to entertain themselves by going to watch other people being killed in the most gruesome, twisted fashions you can imagine, and probably a few that you can't. Violence and bloodshed was something you walked past every day on the street, not something you saw on the news from the comfort of your armchair. What's this world coming to? I don't know, but I know where it's been, and it's been a lot worse places than Maury and Jerry Springer.

Which isn't to say those shows aren't total garbage.

We are supposed to be a civilized society now. But you have pregnant children, raped women, molested boys and girls, murders, whoremongers, backbiters, truce breakers, and any other descriptive term you want to use to describe the dark side of society.

And evil doesn't exist, whatever.

I think people would be better off if they learned to take responsibility for their actions.

[Ace42]

I think people would be better off if they learned to take responsibility for their actions.

Says the guy who falls back on God his invisible friend whenever he gets busted...

I'd not use God as Tuttle.

[Schmeltz]

But we have always had those things, even in the most advanced and accomplished human societies. Chalking it up to "evil" isn't going to solve the problem, though.

[racer5.0stang]

We should start up public hangings, stonings, beheadings, and whatever else a jury would deem appropriate for crime.

That should cause the crime rate to decline.

[racer5.0stang]

A few days ago, we had a discussion on the word "kill" as stated in
Exodus 20:13. This is what that word means according to Strong's Concordance.

7523. ratsach, raw-tsakh'; a prim. root; prop. to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), espec. to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Just in case anyone was wondering.

[racer5.0stang]

Says the guy who falls back on God his invisible friend whenever he gets busted...

I'd not use God as Tuttle.

So, do you still have a desire for bananas, eating bugs and hanging in trees?

[Ace42]

So, do you still have a desire for bananas, eating bugs and hanging in trees?

I thought it was John the Baptist who ate locust?

[100% ILL]

Heard that before.

Yes, there are those who try to predict the actual day it will happen

[racer5.0stang]

I thought it was John the Baptist who ate locust?

Didn't Jesus die so that your sins would be forgiven?

[ASsman]

Didn't Jesus die so that your sins would be forgiven?
No he died so we can PARTY HARD!

Also 100%ILL thanks for your generalizations and stereotypes... Continue listening to your christian hip-hop.

[Ace42]

Didn't Jesus die so that your sins would be forgiven?

Mine specifically?

[Paul Nice]

Hey look - a post about how GWB or America sucks. How suprising and original.

[ASsman]

Nice Job Paul... Join sisko. I suggest everyone else put this troll/spammer on ignore aswell.

[Paul Nice]

Nice Job Paul... Join sisko. I suggest everyone else put this troll/spammer on ignore aswell.

If you see any information you don't like - ignore it! If someone has a dissenting opinion - ignore him! If you come across any challenge to your way of thinking - ignore it!

NEVER EVER QUESTION THAT YOU ARE RIGHT

NEVER LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU

IGNORE EVERYONE

[ASsman]

What's that Paul? You spam because you weren't loved as a child? Or loved in the wrong way?

[Rosie Cotton]

No Pauly, everyone is putting you on ignore because you keep saying the same thing:
Hey look - a post about how GWB or America sucks. How suprising and original.

Perhaps if you came up with something original?

[Paul Nice]

No Pauly, everyone is putting you on ignore because you keep saying the same thing:

georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks

pot, kettle etc

[ASsman]

Ignore my threads if you have nothing intelligent to say. Thank you.

[Paul Nice]

Ignore my threads if you have nothing intelligent to say. Thank you.

I have plenty to say. It's exactly and all that any of you have ever said here:

georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks
georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks
georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks
georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks
georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks
georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks
georgebushsucksamericasucksgeorgebushsucksamericas ucks

[ASsman]

"Calling you childish would be an insult to all children" - Unknown

[ima_zombie]

A strategy which misinforms the vast majority of the US public. Thus it is an "excellent strategy" akin to nuking Iraq flat, US soldiers and all.

Also a strategy used by "Pravda" [truth] the Commie propoganda news letter. US again stealing ideas.


:eek: oh we've been lied too! i don't care. CNN sucks anyways. so does Fox News. and :eek: oh no commie's used it! ahh! who cares? and the US isnt STEALING ideas, the US is USING the idea, and if it did work, who cares. it helps the US. so you must be some US hating idiot.

[Qdrop]

:eek: oh we've been lied too! i don't care. CNN sucks anyways. so does Fox News. and :eek: oh no commie's used it! ahh! who cares? and the US isnt STEALING ideas, the US is USING the idea, and if it did work, who cares. it helps the US. so you must be some US hating idiot.

how old are you?

[GreenEarthAl]

Paul Nice used to come by with the fly libertarian argument. I wonder what happened.

Maybe he's just overwhelmed by the pablum?

[Ace42]

it helps the US. so you must be some US hating idiot.

It helps the US government kill innocent people, thereby sending their god-fearing fundamentalist sons straight to hell. The ones that die in the illegal war get to go there even quicker. Meanwhile, Bush and his cronies get richer, which means the poor get poorer. Most of the US is (comparatively) poor, thus it does not help the US.

Ask the people who died in the WTC how much US imperialism helped them. "Hyuck, we might be dead, but at least our oil is cheaper, and our relatives don't have to pay as much inheritance tax!"

And at the moment, just going on sheer numbers, someone who hates the US is statistically less likely to be an idiot than someone who likes it.

I'm not saying there aren't US hating idiots, merely that the idiots that hate the US are more justified than the idiots that love it. IE you.

[ima_zombie]

how old are you?

16 :D

[ima_zombie]

It helps the US government kill innocent people, thereby sending their god-fearing fundamentalist sons straight to hell. The ones that die in the illegal war get to go there even quicker. Meanwhile, Bush and his cronies get richer, which means the poor get poorer. Most of the US is (comparatively) poor, thus it does not help the US.

Ask the people who died in the WTC how much US imperialism helped them. "Hyuck, we might be dead, but at least our oil is cheaper, and our relatives don't have to pay as much inheritance tax!"

And at the moment, just going on sheer numbers, someone who hates the US is statistically less likely to be an idiot than someone who likes it.

I'm not saying there aren't US hating idiots, merely that the idiots that hate the US are more justified than the idiots that love it. IE you.

what did i say have to do with the WTC. the WTC was done by afganistanies, man. and as for bush and his cronies gettting richer, how is that possible? we all pay equal taxes, the rich pay MORE taxes because they get paid more. amount of taxes you pay is decided upon your paycheck. shdlahgdkl hard to explin, look it up.

[Whois]

what did i say have to do with the WTC. the WTC was done by afganistanies, man. and as for bush and his cronies gettting richer, how is that possible? we all pay equal taxes, the rich pay MORE taxes because they get paid more. amount of taxes you pay is decided upon your paycheck. shdlahgdkl hard to explin, look it up.

Wow...what mind boggling ignorance.

[Funkaloyd]

Zombie, not one of the hijackers were from Afghanistan. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, one of America's closest allies.
And progressive taxes rarely stop the rich from getting richer.

This guy's gotta be playing with us. But then again, I once thought that of Sisko.

[ASsman]

You are arguing with a child... Calm down.

[Whois]

You are arguing with a child... Calm down.

A bloody minded ignorant child...

[Paul Nice]

Paul Nice used to come by with the fly libertarian argument. I wonder what happened.

Maybe he's just overwhelmed by the pablum?

Isn't that why you're never here anymore?

[ASsman]

Ignore my threads as I have ignored your posts. Thank you.

[Paul Nice]

This kid ignores my posts. What bullshit. He's read every one, he's reading this one and he'll read all the ones I post from now on.

[ASsman]

I can only continue to ask you nicely. You disrespect me by acting imaturely in threads I have created for proper/mature discussion.

[Ace42]

what did i say have to do with the WTC. the WTC was done by afganistanies, man. and as for bush and his cronies gettting richer, how is that possible? we all pay equal taxes, the rich pay MORE taxes because they get paid more. amount of taxes you pay is decided upon your paycheck. shdlahgdkl hard to explin, look it up.

The WTC was done by irate individuals who have had their country fucked over by the US. The US fucked them over because "it helps the US" - helps them have multi-million dollar buildings destroyed.

When the US "helps itself" - it fucks over other people. These other people then fuck over the US. It's called "reciprocity" - it is easy to explain, but just as easy for you to "look it up".

Now, think carefully about this. If you all pay *equal* taxes, then how can the rich pay *more* taxes? Your own goddamn sentence contradicts itself.

You do not all pay the same taxes, neither gross (in terms of dollars), nor as a percentage.

Infact, AFAIK, the rich pay a significantly smaller percentage of their income and earnings than the poor do (except for people who pay none, IE the unemployed.)

To put it in terms a fundamentalist christian would understand, as Jesus told his disciples, the poor woman who gives two coins gives more than the rich merchants who give bagfuls.

Also, taxation is not the limiting factor in acquisiton of wealth. If you check the statstics, the rich-poor divide is getting BIGGER. The Rich are getting richer than the poor are getting richer. Due to economic factors such as inflation, this means that the poor must likewise be *poorer*

I take it you are not a billionaire, and thus you are part of the vast unwashed majority who is too stupid to see that they are getting screwed over by Bush and his cronies.

Your countrymen are fighting to make Bush & friends money. They are dying to give Halliburton oil to pump and infrastructures to rebuild. It would be like having some builders pay your neighbours chicken feed to trash your house, and then them rebuilding it and selling it back to you.

I'd imagine even you, as stupid as you are (and assuming you don't live in a trailer) can see that the people doing the demolishing are not the people profitting from this, nor are their families. It is the builders (more specifically, the owner of the building company) that makes the money.

And do you know who makes MILLIONS each year from the main company involved in rebuilding Iraq (Halliburton) - yes that's right, DICK CHENEY!

How long do you think it would take you to earn a million dollars? Work it out, do the math. Dick earns MORE in ONE YEAR.

Now, just imagine that you work twice as hard and get twice as much money coming in. Guess what, Dick earns more money than that just from stuffing his cash into a swiss bank account and living off of the interest.

He could be wiping his ass on $100 dollar bills every day for a year, and every year, he gets his millions (that's paying for thousands of soldiers wages in Iraq, the people getting their legs blown off and who will never walk again) - and every year, he gets even MORE on top of that.

To put this into perspective:

If you had the same income that Cheney did, you got exactly the same money from Halliburton, starting from today, Cheney would still be getting richer than you. The interest from the money he already has would make your yearly millions look like chicken feed.

Even if you (getting the same wage as Cheney) were to do your current job and get your current income AS WELL as the money he gets from Halliburton (and we are not counting the kickbacks he gets from the other deals he has going on here, mind) he'd STILL be getting richer quicker than you.

Face it, a stupid evil hypocritical windbag is making you poor and worthless, and you are sucking his fucking cock for it.

[Paul Nice]

I can only continue to ask you nicely. You disrespect me by acting imaturely in threads I have created for proper/mature discussion.

You disrespect Standard American English by misspelling "immaturely". How could I respect someone who doesn't respect SAE. SHAME ON YOU.

[Schmeltz]

... says Mr. "ROFL."