[pyritechips]

Ok, I was watching the news and they obviously talked about the turmoil in Iraq. These are some gross "incosistancies" between what I was "told" and what I "saw":

1) The Sunni and the Shia have united to fight the Americans: fact, not opinion. Gen Sanchez has the nerve to stand before a microphone and say "We cannot tolerate acts of violence directed against the Iraqi people." Who the Hell is harming them? Iraqis are not fighting other Iraqis and harming them. Iraqis are fighting Americans and they are harming each other: fact, not opinion.

2) "In the south, the militia of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr controls parts of at least two cities, and the Sunni city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, remains under tight siege and attack by the American military.": fact, not opinion. Yet, "In spite of the pictures of American soldiers under attack and dying, American commanders and political leaders remain upbeat. Iraq is under control, they say." How the Hell does being under attack, dying and losing at least three towns constitute being "under control"?

It may be "trendy" to call propaganda "spin"; call it that if it comforts you, but I call it lying. The current administration has lost credibility: fact, not opinion.

 

[oldie]

Sure is looking pretty uneasy in Iraq !!! I have my sat dish locked onto Al Jazeera feed and I don't much like what I am seeing. Nervous coalition troops, something I havn't witnessed since the start of the conflict Tribal (religious) uprising both in the north and south of Iraq. Hundreds of so called freedom fighters, non Iraqis, freely entering Iraq willy nilly with very little border control. Makes one wonder where all these illicit weapons originate?

It is a fact that public opinion in the UK is rapidly changing!!!

Regards - Oldie

 

[hewee]

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/liar.html

 

[oldie]

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/liar.html

Nice one hewee

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

Ok, I was watching the news and they obviously talked about the turmoil in Iraq. These are some gross "incosistancies" between what I was "told" and what I "saw":

1) The Sunni and the Shia have united to fight the Americans: fact, not opinion. Gen Sanchez has the nerve to stand before a microphone and say "We cannot tolerate acts of violence directed against the Iraqi people." Who the Hell is harming them? Iraqis are not fighting other Iraqis and harming them. Iraqis are fighting Americans and they are harming each other: fact, not opinion.
Not all Iraqis are fighting the US and remember that we also have Iraqi policeman and soldiers fighting against them too. So yes, Iraqi's are being harmed by Iraqi's. Further, does the destabilization of Iraq not constitute harm? This is not some grand Iraqi peoples army fighting, this is a select group of fanatics. Much like the Tet offensive did not equal a total Vietnamese uprising, it only consisited of the Viet Cong and NVA.
2) "In the south, the militia of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr controls parts of at least two cities, and the Sunni city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, remains under tight siege and attack by the American military.": fact, not opinion. Yet, "In spite of the pictures of American soldiers under attack and dying, American commanders and political leaders remain upbeat. Iraq is under control, they say." How the Hell does being under attack, dying and losing at least three towns constitute being "under control"?
This is a war. One battle does not constitute a total victory. Like all wars, there are is ups and downs, and simply because we have temporarily lost some ground does not mean we have lost Iraq. Rememeber, at any given time, we could literally bomb the living crap out of them and level the place, but instead we will show considerable constraint. If you are trying to figure out how losing three cities constitutes being "under countrol", how does controlling the rest of the nation constitute " not under control"?
It may be "trendy" to call propaganda "spin"; call it that if it comforts you, but I call it lying. The current administration has lost credibility: fact, not opinion.

I see know lies here. I see a more realistic view of the entire campaign instead of focusing on one skirmish.

 

[WarC]

I think its pretty plain to see that the resistance in Iraq is only continuing the violence. The sooner the violence stops, the sooner the government is handed over and the sooner it can become stable enough for the US and the coalition will leave.

The June 30th handover date is now in question - Congratulations, resistance: You've just guarenteed more US soldiers and more occupation time! Not to mention more innocents dying! But thats okay, because popular opinion will just turn around and scapegoat the americans

The resistance wants the US to leave, and it thinks it will achieve this by force. Now occupiers are increasingly gunhappy because they are afraid of being shot at, but this is turned around by Al Jazeera and other nay-sayers to make it look like those soldiers are demons walking the streets.

People look at civilian deaths and blame the US, but its no surprise when militants fight in the streets and use hospitals and mosques as strongpoints.

 

[GoneForNow]

As I've posted before (hell it even might have been in this thread) the current "uprising" has nothing to do with the hate of Americans as much as it does in getting a political advantage and support of the disenfranchise masses in Iraq by the mullahs. These are not stupid men, they know the US is going to leave (giving a date certain was stupid) now is the time to show your strength by shooting American soldiers.

 

[pyritechips]

focusing on one skirmish.

One "skirmish"? You're kidding, right? I'd like to know what kind of news you are being fed because there are three major towns under Iraqi control, over 100 Iraqis dead, close to 40 Americand dead and Fullajah under seige. That's focusing on one skirmish? Far be it from me to call you a liar but you're not trying to "spin" it, are you?

The June 30th handover date is now in question - Congratulations, resistance: You've just guarenteed more US soldiers and more occupation time!

You just don't get it, do you? The "hand over" is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. The governing council is nothing more than Washingtion yes men. The Americans will still be there and have no intention of leaving. There are plans to buils a large American airforce base there. Wake up to the fact that Iraq is in the very middle of the entire Middle East region; it's strategic value is as high as its oil value. The Americans will never leave.

 

[pyritechips]

Sorry gb; I didn't see your post until I posted mine.

they know the US is going to leave (giving a date certain was stupid)

As I already stated, they are not going to leave, therefore the "date" is irrelevant ans therefore whether it is stupid or not.

getting a political advantage and support of the disenfranchise masses in Iraq by the mullahs

Well said and nearly what I have said in a different thread. It is a natural power struggle, different factions jockeying for position, hoping to be the one to prevail and fill the power vacuum. But since the Americans aren't leaving anyway, that will be a small and precarious vacuum indeed.

 

[oldie]

but this is turned around by Al Jazeera and other nay-sayers to make it look like those soldiers are demons walking the streets.

WarC - Al jazeera is a totally independent commercial concern. Acheiving awards throughout the world for it's live and factual reporting. Recently won an award in Carolina for it's documentaries. Helped our Coalition top brass 24 hours a day during the invasion of Iraq. A thorn in the side of neighbouring Arab countries, especially Saudi They also supply NBC Europe and the BBC.

With regards - Oldie

 

[pyritechips]

Al jazeera...Helped our Coalition top brass 24 hours a day during the invasion of Iraq.

Oh? I have heard tha it was the U.S. that crashed the Al-Jazeera website at the beginning of the invasion a year ago:

War Online By Rick Boguski | March 17, 2003

Inside the Pentagon, there are electronic warfare departments capable of shutting Web sites down. And according to Dyer (Canadian military analyst Gywwne Dyer), some will go down before and during a war in Iraq.

10 days later:

Al-Jazeera suffers DoS attack

15:09 Thursday 27th March 2003

Patrick Gray, ZDNet Australia and Ian Fried, CNET News.com

Within hours of an English version of Al-Jazeera's Web site coming online, it was blown away by a denial of service attack
The Web sites of Al-Jazeera have been taken offline, in what has been confirmed by the Qatar-based media organisation as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against the company's Domain Name Servers (DNS)...US military leaders have criticised Iraq for showing videotapes of US prisoners and some ve extended that criticism to Al-Jazeera

 

[RSM123]

http://mediahopper.com/portal.htm

 

[oldie]

Some truth in that Pyr - but I referred to top brass. Generals in general and not specifically US generals. We must assume that there wasn't total agreement amongst these guys. But overall command was given to the USA.

Website? With hindsight, possibly a wrong move, we may never know.

I specifically referred to TV because they were allowed to go where CNN and the likes were not. Simply because they are an Arab set up, but their reporting was mainly live. Both the BBC and CNN Europe supplied them with specialised mobile equipment.

Oldie

 

[pyritechips]

Hi again Oldie:

I hate to flog a dead horse, but "embedded" journalists producing "in bed with" journalism is still a sore spot with me. I felt better informed getting my news last spring from the CBC, Al-Jazeera and free-lance reporters.

 

[oldie]

Hi again Oldie:

I hate to flog a dead horse, but "embedded" journalists producing "in bed with" journalism is still a sore spot with me. I felt better informed getting my news last spring from the CBC, Al-Jazeera and free-lance reporters.

Point taken, and respected. And I Oldie will avoid jumping on to that never ending carousel that takes us no place There are far more important issues to be discussed and hammered out than a TV station that fought tooth and nail to remain independent of state (Arab) control

Best regards - Oldie

 

[bassetman]

Thanks for that link Hewee!

 

[oldie]

http://mediahopper.com/portal.htm

Satellite enthusiast Richard? Go here

http://www.lyngsat.com/

Oldie

 

[pyritechips]

The following is what I consider lies. All three points have been debunked, but the Administration continues to force-feed it to us. If that is not a concious and deliberate to decieve us into a favourable position then I don't know what is. I list three points, highlight the lies then debunk them. Following that I list the source link:

10 WAYS THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ SUPPORTS THE WAR ON TERROR

1) With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror. According to State Department reports on terrorism, before the removal of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of seven state sponsors of terror.

2) Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, a leader who pursued, used, and possessed weapons of mass destruction is no longer in power.

3) Saddam Hussein would not uphold his international commitments, and now that he is no longer in power, the world is safe from this tyrant. The old Iraqi regime defied the international community and seventeen UN resolutions for twelve years and gave every indication that it would never disarm and never comply with the just demands of the world.

It never has been shown that Saddam was involved in terrorism. He was a brutal dictator, yes, but everything he did was committed within his own country. Yes, he did wage war on Kuwait 13 years ago but if waging war constitutes terrorism then where does that leave the current American president? It's a fact that Al-Qaeda and the rest of the Arab world and Saddam hated each other.

How did Saddam pose a threat to the U.S.? This is so patently absurd and a bareface lie that it is insulting. Saddam couldn't even hold tiny little next door Kuwait. I demand from the next person that insists Saddam was a threat to American to offer evidence, and I don't mean hypotheticals.

The third point is vague but it indicates Saddams unwillingness to give up something he didn't have: WMD. It's shameful that this point is still listed as official government doctrine. No matter American credulity has dissipated world wide.

This is the source of the above "lies": http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part1.html

 

[plschwartz]

Just noticed that in this thread you us the word "american" lies.
For obvious reasons I for one would appreciate the use of the term "Administration lies"

 

[pyritechips]

Understood Paul.

I assumed American (administration) lies, pertaining to Iraq and terrorism.

I never intended to imply that the American people, as a whole, are liars. If any of you south of the border are offended, please accept my humble apologies. I will request that the thread title be edited.