Military Uses Networks to Spread Misinformation

[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.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

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]

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

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]

Originally Posted by Ace42

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]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

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

Originally Posted by Ace42

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

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showp...4&postcount=37

Originally Posted by Ace42

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/showp...8&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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Ace42

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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]

Originally Posted by Ace42

"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]

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

why can't all the monkeys get along?

because of religion.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

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]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

because of religion.

I didn't know monkeys had religion.

[racer5.0stang]

Originally Posted by Ace42

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]

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

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]

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

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]

Originally Posted by Ace42

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]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

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]

Originally Posted by Ace42

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]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.