| |
Main
Date: 15 Nov 2006 15:53:35
From: Brian Foster
Subject: OT: FOX News VS Other media
|
Saw this show on FOX:
http://obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm
I'm glad they had the guts to show it.
But we all know that FOX news is just a tool of the Republican's right? CBS
would never show this kind of material because they are too busy mourning
the loss of the greatest investigative journalist to ever live (Ed Bradley).
When the bomb goes off, and it will, it will not matter what party you
support.
We were able to invade Iraq after 9/11. A few planes and some buildings.
Less than 3,000 casualties.
What do you think this country will be willing to do when we get hit again,
on a larger scale?
So lets get out of Iraq right now and give it to the islamofachists. That
would be the ones supported by Iran and Syria. I am now hearing direct
comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam by many leaders in the democratic
party. They must be right because they won the election and both Kerry and
Murtha were there and saw it with their own eyes. So now they can call the
shots.
I sleep much better now, than before the election. Don't you?
Lets get the UN involved. As soon as Chavez and Admudinijad are done
talking, I'm sure they will want to protect and help us. I'm sure they will
show us how not to make the rest of the world so angry at us......
Can't we all just get along? with our WMD's?
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 13:12:09
From: FredK
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote in message
news:3KG6h.10524$mR4.8549@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Saw this show on FOX:
>
> http://obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm
>
> I'm glad they had the guts to show it.
>
Guts? Why? It was pretty much content free - 12 minutes of my life I won't
get back.
> But we all know that FOX news is just a tool of the Republican's right?
> CBS would never show this kind of material because they are too busy
> mourning the loss of the greatest investigative journalist to ever live
> (Ed Bradley).
>
The matierial didn't shed a whole lot of light on the situation... "Islamic
Facists are evil people. They are worse than the Nazi's and use the same
indoctrination. Holy war. Crusades." No insight into why. No insight
into any solution.
Hmmm. OK - maybe this was the theme. Kill all Muslims and Arabs - because
you can't tell who is a Islamist Facist just by looking at them, and
torturing them to find out might actually make them one. Ooops. Holy War -
Crusades.
> When the bomb goes off, and it will, it will not matter what party you
> support.
>
Hmmm. I didn't seem to notice how this film adressed your point (if there
is one). When the bomb goes off it might not matter to those killed - but
it will matter to all the nutters on the left and right who will point to
the other party as being the reason for it. Ideology apparently rules - as
you so well illustrate.
> We were able to invade Iraq after 9/11. A few planes and some buildings.
> Less than 3,000 casualties.
>
> What do you think this country will be willing to do when we get hit
> again, on a larger scale?
>
React to it. Why do keep making such oddball statements? Have you stopped
beating your wife?
> So lets get out of Iraq right now and give it to the islamofachists. That
> would be the ones supported by Iran and Syria. I am now hearing direct
> comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam by many leaders in the democratic
> party. They must be right because they won the election and both Kerry and
> Murtha were there and saw it with their own eyes. So now they can call the
> shots.
>
Hmmm. Iraq is a cesspit of our own making. It is less about anti-western
terrorism than it is about control of the country by competing tribes and
ethnic groups.
> I sleep much better now, than before the election. Don't you?
>
Yes.
> Lets get the UN involved. As soon as Chavez and Admudinijad are done
> talking, I'm sure they will want to protect and help us. I'm sure they
> will show us how not to make the rest of the world so angry at us......
>
At least *try* to bridge one thought to another to make it seem less like
incoherent rambling.
> Can't we all just get along? with our WMD's?
Apparently not. And it doesn't even matter if you have them or not.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 05:11:18
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:455b587e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
>
> Hmmm. Iraq is a cesspit of our own making. It is less about anti-western
> terrorism than it is about control of the country by competing tribes and
> ethnic groups.
>
>
Don't know about that. One thing that the Democratic party anti-war
establishment seems to miss is that the stakes _are_ really high this time.
Before you jump down my throat, I'll state unequivocally that: 1. The Bush
Admin was mostly at fault for getting us into this mess [though I do wish
that some of those on the Senate soap box would have voted against the war
to begin with. It would be so much easier to take them seriously].. 2.
There is no justification or qualification for the Administration's
stupidity; they are paid very well to know enough to exceed at least the
level of idiocy, and God knows they have enough resources at their disposal
to do so. 3. They failed in that regard.
But, the Democratic leadership is fooling itself if they think this is just
another Vietnam with only petty local interests in play. That is true on
many levels, not least importantly the domestic political level. They
wanted a measure of control, and they have been granted their wish. That
may prove to be the ultimate be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment. If we
follow the course that they appear to be angling for, it could well be an
unmitigated disaster. There _are_ terrorist elements in Iraq that have a
much broader agenda than simply removing American troops from Iraq. There
_will_ be consequences on the streets of Cairo if we appear to leave with
our tails between our legs. That some neocon groupies make foolish
statements in defence of the war in public does not imply that the opposite
of their position is the smart one.
It sucks that Bush & Co. got us into this mess. But what we need now is
hyper-competent leadership. Leadership will be measured in the end by it's
accomplishments. If it turns out that the Democrats can't provide the high
caliber of leadership required by these troubling times and are only the
party of 'we didn't make this mess', I won't hold it against them. I
certainly couldn't solve such an intractable problem. On the other hand, I
wouldn't put myself in charge. The 2008 White House could well be on the
line for the Democrats. Lights, camera, action!
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 07:18:51
From: FredK
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote in message
news:WpS6h.7238$5P2.3318@trnddc02...
>
>
> But, the Democratic leadership is fooling itself if they think this is
> just another Vietnam with only petty local interests in play. That is
> true on many levels, not least importantly the domestic political level.
> They wanted a measure of control, and they have been granted their wish.
> That may prove to be the ultimate be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment. If
> we follow the course that they appear to be angling for, it could well be
> an unmitigated disaster. There _are_ terrorist elements in Iraq that have
> a much broader agenda than simply removing American troops from Iraq.
> There _will_ be consequences on the streets of Cairo if we appear to leave
> with our tails between our legs. That some neocon groupies make foolish
> statements in defence of the war in public does not imply that the
> opposite of their position is the smart one.
>
Should we have "stayed the course" in Vietnam? All of the reasons for
"going to war" in Iraq have either been shown to be wrong (no WMD's) or we
have accomplished (remove & kill Saddam). We are now there for a much more
nebulous goal of bringing a pro-western Democracy to Iraq - or at least that
*was* the goal. At this point I think most people will settle for a stable
government of any kind. We are being used by many Iraqis right now as a
shield to position themselves for post-US Iraq.
The point is, Mission Accomplished. We toppled Saddam. Made the world safe
from its WMD's. The Iraqi's elected a government. We now turn the
government of Iraq over to the Iraqi's. Give them a time table - with
"some" flexibility - and tell them we'll help you fix things - but our job
is done. Show them that our intent was NOT to be a permanent occupier.
That our intent was NOT to secure the oil fields for Exxon.
The streets of Cairo have problems all of there own. Even the content free
film clip that originated this thread makes it clear that the "threat" does
not have a single locus. The problems inside Iraq and not from the outside,
but ones that are longstanding and internal. Until they are FORCED to make
the hard decisions to compromise - it will not happen. And that will not
happen until we LEAVE.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 00:16:31
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:455c572c@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Should we have "stayed the course" in Vietnam?
No. We had no national interest in South Vietnam.
> All of the reasons for "going to war" in Iraq have either been shown to be
> wrong (no WMD's) or we have accomplished (remove & kill Saddam).
But this isn't really relevant to the question of 'what now?' Things have
changed quite a bit since 2003. If you believe that it was wrong-headed to
attack Iraq in the first place, then you and I are in 100% agreement on
that.
We are now there for a much more
> nebulous goal of bringing a pro-western Democracy to Iraq - or at least
> that *was* the goal. At this point I think most people will settle for a
> stable government of any kind. We are being used by many Iraqis right now
> as a shield to position themselves for post-US Iraq.
IMO, the Iraqi Democracy bit is simply PR. My guess is that the real goal
now is a stable government that won't be overrun the moment we leave by
factions with decidedly anti-American tendencies If that means a
dictatorship, I suspect we would grumble about it and be thankful to be able
to withdraw.
>
> The point is, Mission Accomplished. We toppled Saddam. Made the world
> safe from its WMD's. The Iraqi's elected a government. We now turn the
> government of Iraq over to the Iraqi's. Give them a time table - with
> "some" flexibility - and tell them we'll help you fix things - but our job
> is done. Show them that our intent was NOT to be a permanent occupier.
> That our intent was NOT to secure the oil fields for Exxon.
I think some variation on this theme is the only real option. My point was
not that we should stay. My point was that it is extremely important how we
leave. If the Democrats misplay their position now, they could pay dearly
for it down the road. Our national security could take a serious beating if
the move is premature or is done simply to get out with no regard for future
scenarios. As bad for our interests as it would be, U.S. military forces in
Iraq 10 years from now is not the worst possible outcome, JMO.
>
> The streets of Cairo have problems all of there own. Even the content
> free film clip that originated this thread makes it clear that the
> "threat" does not have a single locus. The problems inside Iraq and not
> from the outside, but ones that are longstanding and internal. Until they
> are FORCED to make the hard decisions to compromise - it will not happen.
> And that will not happen until we LEAVE.
The jihadists in 1980's Afghanistan became heroes in the Muslim world
because they drove out the godless enemy. That played a pivotal role in the
ascension of bin Laden among radical islamists. That is precisely the sort
of thing that could happen if our withdrawal is perceived to be the
equivalent of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. For what it's worth,
I'm beginning to believe that this effect is unavoidable at this point no
matter what we do.
You are correct that anti-Western sentiments in the Muslim world have a
complex set of causes. But we happen to be focusing on one of those at the
moment. I've not said or believe that Iraq is the only (or even most
important) cause. But since the topic at hand is Iraq....
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:18:16
From: multi
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 05:11:18 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>But, the Democratic leadership is fooling itself if they think this is just
>another Vietnam with only petty local interests in play.
How soon they forget. At the time, Vietnam was presented as the most
important war of the century. If we lost Vietnam, then other
countries would topple like dominos, and the Commies would take over
the world.
When will you learn that EVERY battle the idiots want to fight is spun
into a crucial battle for our existence. The retreads Bush has
running things (Gates, Negroponte, etc.) made their bones by sending
out death squads in Central America, claiming that the Commies would
come up through Texas if we didn't kill all the leftists. We've
killed the number two man in al Qaeda about a dozen times now. Even a
few retarded Florida teenagers are depicted as a massive terrorist
cell. It would be funny if the dittoheads didn't believe it every
time.
You want to impress me? Explain why someone who wants to attack
America doesn't just do it, picking any one of a million pillow-soft
targets, instead of going to Iraq and attacking heavily armed, highly
trained, dug in soldiers. It's certainly not because it would be hard
to do. Thanks to the Reps kowtowing to industry lobbyists, there has
been next to nothing done to improve the security at chemical plants,
nuclear facilities, or ports.
If we leave Iraq, nobody is going to follow us home. There will be a
civil war, no matter how long we stay, and no matter how many more
Americans get killed. The very best we can ever hope for now is that
it ends up EXACTLY like Vietnam, i.e. we leave a couple months ahead
of the maximum slaughter, so we can say it wasn't our fault.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 04:50:26
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Nov 18, 6:35 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:44:17 -0600, "the Moderator"
> ><sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
> >>> you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
> >>> was a debacle, Brownie.
>
> >>Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
> >>response by the federal government in US history.
>
> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>THAT is the worst possible shit that I was speaking of. The finger
> pointing is ridiculous. I know FEMA personnel that told me they had
> to sit on their ass...and not because of local government.
Like coffee in the morning to some, BK greets the day w/ a steaming cup
of Usenet Quixote-ing. Tilt on, Bob-O, tilt on!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 07:43:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 18 Nov 2006 04:50:26 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>On Nov 18, 6:35 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:44:17 -0600, "the Moderator"
>> ><sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
>> >>> you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
>> >>> was a debacle, Brownie.
>>
>> >>Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
>> >>response by the federal government in US history.
>>
>> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
>> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>
>>THAT is the worst possible shit that I was speaking of. The finger
>> pointing is ridiculous. I know FEMA personnel that told me they had
>> to sit on their ass...and not because of local government.
>
>Like coffee in the morning to some, BK greets the day w/ a steaming cup
>of Usenet Quixote-ing. Tilt on, Bob-O, tilt on!
We're eagerly awaiting some pithy commentary from you today too,
Gentle Ben.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 06:35:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>
> The locals mis-handled Katrina. But a major part of this president's
> "accomplishments", one which he used as a campaign platform, was in
> the way the Department of Homeland Security improved our ability to
> respond to disasters. That's why it took over FEMA.
>
> Katrina was its first test. Would anybody give it a C grade in that
> test?
I'd give it an F. Bill Clinton turned FEMA from a dumping ground for
political appointees into a real emergency management agency staffed by
experienced professionals and run by James Lee Whitt, who is a real
expert in that field. Bush turned it into a backwater division of a
department that is concerned primarily with national security threats.
He put a guy in charge of it who had no background or experience in
emergency management. FEMA's response to Katrina was a national
disgrace.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 03:47:15
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:455b587e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Hmmm. Iraq is a cesspit of our own making. It is less about anti-western
> terrorism than it is about control of the country by competing tribes and
> ethnic groups.
You are so wrong.....
It is all about anti-western radical islam. The Iraqi civil war thing is
all about prime time TV and you bought it.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 06:58:31
From: FredK
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote in message
news:7bR6h.10605$mR4.8870@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:455b587e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>> Hmmm. Iraq is a cesspit of our own making. It is less about
>> anti-western terrorism than it is about control of the country by
>> competing tribes and ethnic groups.
>
> You are so wrong.....
>
> It is all about anti-western radical islam. The Iraqi civil war thing is
> all about prime time TV and you bought it.
I didn't buy anything, nor did I drink the coolaid that you've been sipping.
Rather than sending pointers to rather pointless short films (designed to
make people afraid, but not help them understand the issues or possible
solutions) - why not go and do some research and thinking on your own...
who knows - maybe you'll be the person who comes up with a plan to "solve"
the problem.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 21:52:55
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in why not go and do some
research and thinking on your own...
> who knows - maybe you'll be the person who comes up with a plan to "solve"
> the problem.
>
Let me guess, you're really Alec Baldwin? Or perhaps Barbara Streisand?
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 11:59:57
From:
Subject: Re: OT: FOX News VS Other media
|
> What do you think this country will be willing to do when we get hit again,
> on a larger scale?
Probably not much if it's up to Harry Reid (the new Leader of al-Quaida
in America).
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 07:26:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> That some neocon groupies make foolish
> statements in defence of the war in public does not imply that the opposite
> of their position is the smart one.
Here's the problem: the current administration of neocons loves using
fear tactics to scare Americans to back their side. Whether it's
WMD's, Nancy Pelosi, or the current rage, "Islamafacists." That seems
to be all the rage these days ... scare people by showing all these
radical Muslims training their kids to hate Americans. The problem is
that they've cried wolf so many times it isn't yet clear whether this
is a real problem or just a manufactured one to support their next
agenda (invading Iran?).
There are still white racist groups here in the US who train their kids
to hate blacks and Jews, but I don't see any stories of this on the
news. But if you say "Islamafacist" enough times people take notice.
Does anybody even know what the word means? Bush loves saying it since
it's one of the few words he doesn't mangle. Meanwhile, all Muslims
get painted with the same broad brush. The radical Muslims are a very
small minority, but to watch the news on TV you'd think they were
gathering at our borders readying for Jihad.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:55:55
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163690777.125712.233650@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> S McFarlane wrote:
> > That some neocon groupies make foolish
> > statements in defence of the war in public does not imply that the
opposite
> > of their position is the smart one.
>
> Here's the problem: the current administration of neocons loves using
> fear tactics to scare Americans to back their side. Whether it's
> WMD's, Nancy Pelosi, or the current rage, "Islamafacists." That seems
> to be all the rage these days ... scare people by showing all these
> radical Muslims training their kids to hate Americans. The problem is
> that they've cried wolf so many times it isn't yet clear whether this
> is a real problem or just a manufactured one to support their next
> agenda (invading Iran?).
>
> There are still white racist groups here in the US who train their kids
> to hate blacks and Jews, but I don't see any stories of this on the
> news. But if you say "Islamafacist" enough times people take notice.
> Does anybody even know what the word means? Bush loves saying it since
> it's one of the few words he doesn't mangle. Meanwhile, all Muslims
> get painted with the same broad brush. The radical Muslims are a very
> small minority, but to watch the news on TV you'd think they were
> gathering at our borders readying for Jihad.
Democrats never use scare tactics.
/sarcasm
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:02:54
From: FredK
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:oYSdnf8UDp6ABcHYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163690777.125712.233650@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> S McFarlane wrote:
>> > That some neocon groupies make foolish
>> > statements in defence of the war in public does not imply that the
> opposite
>> > of their position is the smart one.
>>
>> Here's the problem: the current administration of neocons loves using
>> fear tactics to scare Americans to back their side. Whether it's
>> WMD's, Nancy Pelosi, or the current rage, "Islamafacists." That seems
>> to be all the rage these days ... scare people by showing all these
>> radical Muslims training their kids to hate Americans. The problem is
>> that they've cried wolf so many times it isn't yet clear whether this
>> is a real problem or just a manufactured one to support their next
>> agenda (invading Iran?).
>>
>> There are still white racist groups here in the US who train their kids
>> to hate blacks and Jews, but I don't see any stories of this on the
>> news. But if you say "Islamafacist" enough times people take notice.
>> Does anybody even know what the word means? Bush loves saying it since
>> it's one of the few words he doesn't mangle. Meanwhile, all Muslims
>> get painted with the same broad brush. The radical Muslims are a very
>> small minority, but to watch the news on TV you'd think they were
>> gathering at our borders readying for Jihad.
>
> Democrats never use scare tactics.
>
> /sarcasm
>
Not very often, or very well - probably not since LBJ have they pulled it
off. Dem's are a bunch of well meaning folks who don't quite have the whole
nasty game down quite as well as the Repugs.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:19:15
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:455c99c1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> news:oYSdnf8UDp6ABcHYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> >
> > Democrats never use scare tactics.
> >
> > /sarcasm
> >
>
> Not very often, or very well - probably not since LBJ have they pulled it
> off. Dem's are a bunch of well meaning folks who don't quite have the
whole
> nasty game down quite as well as the Repugs.
Not very often? Election fraud, Racism, Tax cuts for the rich, loosing
Medicaid, bringing back the draft, Halliburton, inflated body counts,
Katrina....
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:52:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:pI-dnZV_P8V-fsHYnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:455c99c1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>>
>> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
>> news:oYSdnf8UDp6ABcHYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>> >
>> > Democrats never use scare tactics.
>> >
>> > /sarcasm
>> >
>>
>> Not very often, or very well - probably not since LBJ have they pulled it
>> off. Dem's are a bunch of well meaning folks who don't quite have the
> whole
>> nasty game down quite as well as the Repugs.
>
> Not very often? Election fraud, Racism, Tax cuts for the rich, loosing
> Medicaid, bringing back the draft, Halliburton, inflated body counts,
> Katrina....
>
Don't forget global warming.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:24:23
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:19:15 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
>news:455c99c1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>>
>> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
>> news:oYSdnf8UDp6ABcHYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>> >
>> > Democrats never use scare tactics.
>> >
>> > /sarcasm
>> >
>>
>> Not very often, or very well - probably not since LBJ have they pulled it
>> off. Dem's are a bunch of well meaning folks who don't quite have the
>whole
>> nasty game down quite as well as the Repugs.
>
>Not very often? Election fraud, Racism, Tax cuts for the rich, loosing
>Medicaid, bringing back the draft, Halliburton, inflated body counts,
>Katrina....
>
So telling the truth (in most instances above) is now a scare tactic?
Get real.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 10:25:28
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:m6ppl25o9iv7du9cp8prlphtfendvrimjm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:19:15 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> >Not very often? Election fraud, Racism, Tax cuts for the rich, loosing
> >Medicaid, bringing back the draft, Halliburton, inflated body counts,
> >Katrina....
> >
> So telling the truth (in most instances above) is now a scare tactic?
> Get real.
The truth is there was no election fraud, racism is not tied to political
party, 1% of Americans pay 30% of the taxes and 50% of Americans pay 1% of
taxes, Medicaid is here to stay, it is the Democrats who proposed a draft,
Halliburton is a for profit company like GM and Ford, the Lancet report is
bogus, and the Federal response to Katrina was the largest and fastest in US
history.
How bout dem facts?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 11:47:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:m6ppl25o9iv7du9cp8prlphtfendvrimjm@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:19:15 -0600, "the Moderator"
>> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Not very often? Election fraud, Racism, Tax cuts for the rich, loosing
>> >Medicaid, bringing back the draft, Halliburton, inflated body counts,
>> >Katrina....
>> >
>> So telling the truth (in most instances above) is now a scare tactic?
>> Get real.
>
>The truth is there was no election fraud, racism is not tied to political
>party, 1% of Americans pay 30% of the taxes and 50% of Americans pay 1% of
>taxes, Medicaid is here to stay, it is the Democrats who proposed a draft,
>Halliburton is a for profit company like GM and Ford, the Lancet report is
>bogus, and the Federal response to Katrina was the largest and fastest in US
>history.
>
>How bout dem facts?
>
See above (most instances). Scare tactics about voting fraud? Who
was scared?
Racism; the radical right owns the term.
Haliburton; what scare tactics? They've been given free rein to rape
us financially.
Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
was a debacle, Brownie.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 15:44:17
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:v2trl2d5qcor1reqogdtb00krurcpegh6k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:25:28 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >The truth is there was no election fraud, racism is not tied to political
> >party, 1% of Americans pay 30% of the taxes and 50% of Americans pay 1%
of
> >taxes, Medicaid is here to stay, it is the Democrats who proposed a
draft,
> >Halliburton is a for profit company like GM and Ford, the Lancet report
is
> >bogus, and the Federal response to Katrina was the largest and fastest in
US
> >history.
> >
> >How bout dem facts?
> >
> See above (most instances). Scare tactics about voting fraud? Who
> was scared?
Voters. You don't think there was any legitimacy to the voting fraud claims
do you?
> Racism; the radical right owns the term.
I don't even know what that means. You mean like Abe Lincoln?
> Haliburton; what scare tactics? They've been given free rein to rape
> us financially.
I don't think their profits are out of line with the services they provide.
Don't you think the GAO pays attention to stuff like that?
> Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
> you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
> was a debacle, Brownie.
Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
response by the federal government in US history.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:44:17 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>> Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
>> you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
>> was a debacle, Brownie.
>
>Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
>response by the federal government in US history.
And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:36:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
>the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
The locals mis-handled Katrina. But a major part of this president's
"accomplishments", one which he used as a campaign platform, was in
the way the Department of Homeland Security improved our ability to
respond to disasters. That's why it took over FEMA.
Katrina was its first test. Would anybody give it a C grade in that
test?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 22:50:43
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>
> The locals mis-handled Katrina. But a major part of this president's
> "accomplishments", one which he used as a campaign platform, was in
> the way the Department of Homeland Security improved our ability to
> respond to disasters. That's why it took over FEMA.
>
> Katrina was its first test. Would anybody give it a C grade in that
> test?
I've heard fed responders in La say they couldn't go in until they got
local and state OK. In MS they had that OK before the hurricane hit.
Quelle difference! How is that Bush's fault? The local response hasn't
really happened yet in New Orleans!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 17:05:00
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:50:43 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>I've heard fed responders in La say they couldn't go in until they got
>local and state OK. In MS they had that OK before the hurricane hit.
>Quelle difference! How is that Bush's fault? The local response hasn't
>really happened yet in New Orleans!
The whole idea of the Department of National Security is to handle
such disasters - not after the paperwork and politicking is done - but
instantly. So they have excuses for their failure. Big deal.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 06:35:33
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:44:17 -0600, "the Moderator"
><sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>>> Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
>>> you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
>>> was a debacle, Brownie.
>>
>>Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
>>response by the federal government in US history.
>
>And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
>the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
THAT is the worst possible shit that I was speaking of. The finger
pointing is ridiculous. I know FEMA personnel that told me they had
to sit on their ass...and not because of local government.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:11:21
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 18-Nov-2006, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>
> THAT is the worst possible shit that I was speaking of. The finger
> pointing is ridiculous. I know FEMA personnel that told me they had
> to sit on their ass...and not because of local government.
Still Bobby, you have to have noticed some difference in the MS response and
LA's? The cluster was a lot less f'ed over there.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 11:18:03
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:11:21 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>
>On 18-Nov-2006, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
>> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>>
>> THAT is the worst possible shit that I was speaking of. The finger
>> pointing is ridiculous. I know FEMA personnel that told me they had
>> to sit on their ass...and not because of local government.
>
>Still Bobby, you have to have noticed some difference in the MS response and
>LA's? The cluster was a lot less f'ed over there.
There's enough blame to go around to everyone involved. My point is
that FEMA didn't perform the fastest and largest response by the
federal government in US history. That was done in Florida, and
another hurricane.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 19:46:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:18:03 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>There's enough blame to go around to everyone involved. My point is
>that FEMA didn't perform the fastest and largest response by the
>federal government in US history. That was done in Florida, and
>another hurricane.
The blame game is a long story.
Back in the 1960s, when the levees were built, the Feds didn't want to
spend as much as it would have taken for them to withstand a Cat 4 and
above hurricane. Mistake #1.
In the 1970s, the Army Corp of Engineers proposed a flood gate that
would have been able to prevent storm surges in the Gulf from going
into Lake Poncetrain. A local environment group called Save Our
Wetlands opposed the project and blocked it in court due to
environmental considerations. Mistake #2.
The local authorities knew that the levee's wouldn't stand up to a
Category 4 or 5 hurricane. Accordingly, the plan was to evacuate the
city if such an eventuality happened. The plan was inadequate and
everyone knew it, yet nothing was done about it. Mistake #3.
FEMA was never intended to be a first responder. However, they never
developed a Plan B if the usual first responders were incapacitated.
In addition, putting FIMA in the Homeland Security Dept. was a
mistake. Putting a group that is responsible for quick decisive
action under another level of bureaucracy was a bad idea. Mistakes #
4 and #5.
The LA Governor was very late in calling out the National Guard and
she told FIMA not to bring food and water to the Superdome because she
wanted the people to be evacuated out of the city. This wasn't a bad
idea if there was a way to get the people out of the city, which there
wasn't. Mistakes #6 and #7.
All that being said, Katrina was a natural disaster of unprecedented
proportions and when things like that happen, you can't expect things
to go smoothly. Normally, FIMA has the local police, fire department,
EMS and hospitals to depend on. In this case, all the usual first
responders were victims.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:45:50
From: Dene
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Ben. wrote:
> I have absolutely zero doubt you are sitting eagerly in front of
your
> computer all day....every day. And I didn't know you have a lisp.
Sad commentary about retirement.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 13:59:08
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Nov 18, 7:43 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2006 04:50:26 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 18, 6:35 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:23:18 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:44:17 -0600, "the Moderator"
> >> ><sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
> >> >>> you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
> >> >>> was a debacle, Brownie.
>
> >> >>Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
> >> >>response by the federal government in US history.
>
> >> >And if the local government would have responded as they should have,
> >> >the situation would have never gotten as bad as it did.
>
> >>THAT is the worst possible shit that I was speaking of. The finger
> >> pointing is ridiculous. I know FEMA personnel that told me they had
> >> to sit on their ass...and not because of local government.
>
> >Like coffee in the morning to some, BK greets the day w/ a steaming cup
> >of Usenet Quixote-ing. Tilt on, Bob-O, tilt on!
>We're eagerly awaiting some pithy commentary from you today too,
> Gentle Ben.
I have absolutely zero doubt you are sitting eagerly in front of your
computer all day....every day. And I didn't know you have a lisp.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 22:04:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 18 Nov 2006 13:59:08 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>On Nov 18, 7:43 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2006 04:50:26 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Like coffee in the morning to some, BK greets the day w/ a steaming cup
>> >of Usenet Quixote-ing. Tilt on, Bob-O, tilt on!
>
>>We're eagerly awaiting some pithy commentary from you today too,
>> Gentle Ben.
>
>I have absolutely zero doubt you are sitting eagerly in front of your
>computer all day....every day. And I didn't know you have a lisp.
Actually I was just kidding. We're leaving for Vegas for theveral
days in about an hour. When I thaid we, I was thspeaking for
otherths. Take care of the news group until I return Gentle.
bk
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 17:01:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 18 Nov 2006 13:59:08 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I have absolutely zero doubt you are sitting eagerly in front of your
>computer all day....every day. And I didn't know you have a lisp.
As I said to the job interviewer - Yes, I know COBOL, Java, & Fortran
- and no I don't LISP.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 12:46:14
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> As I said to the job interviewer - Yes, I know COBOL, Java,
Mix your JAVA skills with another language, ABAP/4 (and in particular
extend your knowledge to OO ABAP and WebDynpro) and you can name your own
price these days. US Government contractors are bringing in Web Dynpro /
OO-ABAP guys in for anywhere from $125/hour to $150/hour + expenses
($250K/year to $300K/year). For an idea on what our Government needs;
surf Dice.com using the keyword SAP or ABAP; and if you already have a
clearance that is active (PF85's are good for 5 years to 10 years depending
on which Department you are working for) then check out ClearanceJobs.com
(owned by Dice).
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:47:31
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:50:43 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard fed responders in La say they couldn't go in until they got
> >local and state OK. In MS they had that OK before the hurricane hit.
> >Quelle difference! How is that Bush's fault? The local response hasn't
> >really happened yet in New Orleans!
>
> The whole idea of the Department of National Security is to handle
> such disasters - not after the paperwork and politicking is done - but
> instantly. So they have excuses for their failure. Big deal.
The system was and is set up for the feds to respond after the locals
give them the authority. It worked everywhere else but Louisiana...I
wonder why?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 01:11:39
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163690777.125712.233650@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Here's the problem: the current administration of neocons loves using
> fear tactics to scare Americans to back their side. Whether it's
> WMD's, Nancy Pelosi, or the current rage, "Islamafacists." That seems
> to be all the rage these days ... scare people by showing all these
> radical Muslims training their kids to hate Americans. The problem is
> that they've cried wolf so many times it isn't yet clear whether this
> is a real problem or just a manufactured one to support their next
> agenda (invading Iran?).
Yes, the Bush Admin has lost most of it's credibility outside of it's core
supporters. My opinion fairly well ignores what they have to say, since I
regard it as mostly propaganda and untrustworthy.
Personally, I don't think that issues related to terrorist groups are our
biggest concern in the Middle East. IMO, it comes down to the stability of
the world's oil supply, and what appears to be a serious tilt in the balance
of Middle-Eastern power towards Iran. Those are IMO clearly very serious
issues from our perspective, and how we play it from where we stand today
could have a dramatic influence on how those issues play out in the future.
That said, I think it's safe to say that radical Islamists do represent a
very serious threat. Bush & Co. may go overboard with the rhetoric, and I
strongly oppose how they've chosen to address this issue. But that doesn't
really say anything at all about whether these groups represent a serious
danger to us. If nothing else, 9/11 tells us that these groups do pose a
threat. As 9/11 wasn't nearly as serious as a single attack might have
been, I have to conclude that we must consider it a potentially grave
threat.
Something I've seen on one of those CNN background pieces that gives reason
to be hopeful: allegedly there are many people within radical Muslim
circles that view 9/11 as a serious mistake on bin Laden's part because it
precipitated such an overwhelming response from the US. That's a reasonable
analysis, I'd say. If that's true, it makes the scope of threat we are
dealing with a little less serious.
>
> There are still white racist groups here in the US who train their kids
> to hate blacks and Jews, but I don't see any stories of this on the
> news. But if you say "Islamafacist" enough times people take notice.
> Does anybody even know what the word means? Bush loves saying it since
> it's one of the few words he doesn't mangle. Meanwhile, all Muslims
> get painted with the same broad brush. The radical Muslims are a very
> small minority, but to watch the news on TV you'd think they were
> gathering at our borders readying for Jihad.
I don't think very many Americans have a very clear perspective on the
Muslim world. You are correct in pointing out that the Administration's
rhetoric has the effect of lumping all Muslims into a radical minority in
the minds of many Americans. As time goes on, people begin to believe that
the percentage of radicals in the Muslim world is larger and larger until
eventually Muslim = radical in some minds.
IMO, we tend to focus a lot of attention on the so-called Islamafacists
because they have foreign faces and are therefore easily demonized. For
many Americans, 9/11 was an act of war. Hardly anyone would describe the OK
City bombing as an act of war. Contrast the reactions to the two bombings.
Do you think the reactions were so different simply because of the differing
magnitudes of damage? I think you're on the right track.
Scott
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 22:03:50
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163690777.125712.233650@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Meanwhile, all Muslims
> get painted with the same broad brush. The radical Muslims are a very
> small minority, but to watch the news on TV you'd think they were
> gathering at our borders readying for Jihad.
So then this is all just an over exaggerated phenomenon that the right wing
has gotten ahold of and run with? We should not be worried at all about Al
Queda, Hezbollah, Iran, or Syria? And the "Good" Muslims will take care of
the "Bad" muslims and end terrorism and violence.
Please explain more, you obviously see something here that I am missing.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 22:02:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:03:50 GMT, "Brian Foster"
<brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote:
>So then this is all just an over exaggerated phenomenon that the right wing
>has gotten ahold of and run with? We should not be worried at all about Al
>Queda, Hezbollah, Iran, or Syria? And the "Good" Muslims will take care of
>the "Bad" muslims and end terrorism and violence.
There are a lot of people who are in denial about the Muslim radical
threat. This includes just about all of Europe outside of the UK.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 07:05:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Brian Foster wrote:
> "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:455b587e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> > Hmmm. Iraq is a cesspit of our own making. It is less about anti-western
> > terrorism than it is about control of the country by competing tribes and
> > ethnic groups.
>
> You are so wrong.....
>
> It is all about anti-western radical islam. The Iraqi civil war thing is
> all about prime time TV and you bought it.
Oh, right. There's no civil war in Iraq. It's all a creation of the
media to get ratings. See if you can come up with something even
stupider than that. I don't think you can, but give it a shot.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 19:25:25
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
FredK wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1163709850.427389.323680@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Carbon wrote:
> >>
> >> You are so wrong.....
> >>
> >> We used the pretext of anti-western radical islam to invade Iraq and now
> >> there is more anti-American sympathy in the middle east than ever before.
> >> If our plan was to create terrorists we have succeeded beyond our
> >> wildest expectations.
> >
> > If we leave Iraq, there will be even more anti-US sentiment, and the
> > other side knows it.
>
> Cite your source.
>
> >We go in there for some reason to suit ourselves,
> > and now want to leave it in chaos because we feel uncomfortable about
> > it. Fact is that most people in Iraq want the US to stay.
>
> Cite your source.
>
> >The people
> > who are doing the killing are a minority of criminals, many from
> > outside Iraq.
>
> Cite your source.
>
> >The worst thing that could happen to Iran would be to
> > have 2 not so anti western Islamic democracies on their borders. They
> > will do anything they can to prevent that. According to current
> > political winds, Americans don't have the guts to hang in there
> > (clearly the rest of the western world lacks the guts to even try).
> > This is nowhere near as nasty as Vietnam, and comparisons are ludicrous.
> >
>
> Interestingly enough, I just heard a report *from* Vietnam - *they* think
> the comparison is good - that the US government hasn't learned from it's
> mistakes. Oh - they also like the US (at least the people).
>
> But to sum it up - you made some assertions without apparent facts to back
> it up. Rush again?
I made some assertions which are no diffeent than those that oppose
them. The people in Iraq voted in droves, despite being loudly and
aggressivly encouraged not to by anti US sources, for example. All they
had to do to show the most passive of resistance to the US inpires
hopes for Iraq was not go to the polls. No doubt you have some
unsubstantiated "other reason" why they went to the polls.....
Cite a source as to why the US went into Iraq? You live in a cave?
Remember WMD?
Who is the head of Al queda in Iraq? An Iraqi...or don't you know? Who
was the former head of Al queda in Iraq? You don't know?
If you can't deduce that going into some coutrty to serve your own
purpose and leaving in in chaos when you get tired of it will most
likely inspire a negative response then you just think differently than
I do.
FWIW, that was one of the most totally lame responses I have ever seen
to any post I have ever made.
Cite your source? Do so. How is Iraq as bad as Vietnam, Hmmm?...and
cite your source. I refer to US troop casualties. What do you have?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 07:49:03
From: FredK
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1163733925.496522.55410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> FWIW, that was one of the most totally lame responses I have ever seen
> to any post I have ever made.
>
You are a professor of what? Read over your own responses and then use it
as the baseline definition of "lame".
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 13:46:22
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
The_Professor wrote:
>Fact is that most people in Iraq want the US to stay.
What would lead you to that conclusion?
We are viewed as occupiers by the majority of Iraqis and correctly so.
Nobody wants to be occupied. The same thing would happen if we were
invaded by a foreign country, no matter how bad our present leadership
might be.
It is true that many Iraqis were glad Saddam was ousted, but i don't
believe too many of them wish we'd stay much longer.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 22:40:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 16 Nov 2006 13:46:22 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>The_Professor wrote:
>
>>Fact is that most people in Iraq want the US to stay.
>
>What would lead you to that conclusion?
>We are viewed as occupiers by the majority of Iraqis and correctly so.
>Nobody wants to be occupied. The same thing would happen if we were
>invaded by a foreign country, no matter how bad our present leadership
>might be.
>
>It is true that many Iraqis were glad Saddam was ousted, but i don't
>believe too many of them wish we'd stay much longer.
Actually 34% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within a year and 29%
say the US should stay for up to 2 years or until the security
situation improves. Only 37% say they want the US to withdraw within
the next 6 months. Overall, it doesn't look like too many the Iraqis
are in favor of immediate US withdrawal.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 04:19:03
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: Actually 34% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within a year and 29%
: say the US should stay for up to 2 years or until the security
: situation improves.
You don't say. How were these stats compiled? By telephone?
Seriously, why on earth should anyone believe *any* polling
that comes out of Iraq these days?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 10:16:39
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:19:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>ack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: Actually 34% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within a year and 29%
>: say the US should stay for up to 2 years or until the security
>: situation improves.
>
>You don't say. How were these stats compiled? By telephone?
>
>Seriously, why on earth should anyone believe *any* polling
>that comes out of Iraq these days?
The poll was done by professional pollsters with over 20 years
experience doing public opinion research in the Middle East.
"METHODOLOGY
The survey was designed and analyzed by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes for WorldPublicOpinion.org. Field work was conducted
through D3 Systems and its partner KA Research in Iraq. Face-to-face
interviews were conducted among a national random sample of 1,000
Iraqi adults 18 years and older. An over sample of 150 Iraqi Sunni
Arabs from predominantly Sunni Arab provinces (Anbar, Diyalah and
Salah Al-Din) was carried out to provide additional precision with
this group. The total sample thus was 1,150 Iraqi adults. The data
were weighted to the following targets (Shia Arab, 55%, Sunni Arab
22%, Kurd 18%, other 5%) in order to properly represent the Iraqi
ethnic/religious communities.
The sample design was a multi-stage area probability sample conducted
in all 18 Iraqi provinces including Baghdad. Urban and rural areas
were proportionally represented. Only one rural sampling point of the
115 employed were replaced for security reasons with substitutes in
the same province and urban/rural classification. Among all the cases
drawn into the sample, a 93% contact rate and 72% completion rate were
achieved."
The statistical analysis has the standard plus or minus 3% error
level. Administering and analyzing surveys is not rocket science and
it has a proven track record of accuracy.
In any case, this is the most accurate estimate around. It was done
in Sept 2006, so it's fairly recent. If you disagree with the
results, show me some data to back your opinions up. Ultimately, this
study is a lot better than an opinion.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:44:10
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Carbon wrote:
>
> You are so wrong.....
>
> We used the pretext of anti-western radical islam to invade Iraq and now
> there is more anti-American sympathy in the middle east than ever before.
> If our plan was to create terrorists we have succeeded beyond our
> wildest expectations.
If we leave Iraq, there will be even more anti-US sentiment, and the
other side knows it. We go in there for some reason to suit ourselves,
and now want to leave it in chaos because we feel uncomfortable about
it. Fact is that most people in Iraq want the US to stay. The people
who are doing the killing are a minority of criminals, many from
outside Iraq. The worst thing that could happen to Iran would be to
have 2 not so anti western Islamic democracies on their borders. They
will do anything they can to prevent that. According to current
political winds, Americans don't have the guts to hang in there
(clearly the rest of the western world lacks the guts to even try).
This is nowhere near as nasty as Vietnam, and comparisons are ludicrous.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:09:59
From: FredK
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1163709850.427389.323680@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Carbon wrote:
>>
>> You are so wrong.....
>>
>> We used the pretext of anti-western radical islam to invade Iraq and now
>> there is more anti-American sympathy in the middle east than ever before.
>> If our plan was to create terrorists we have succeeded beyond our
>> wildest expectations.
>
> If we leave Iraq, there will be even more anti-US sentiment, and the
> other side knows it.
Cite your source.
>We go in there for some reason to suit ourselves,
> and now want to leave it in chaos because we feel uncomfortable about
> it. Fact is that most people in Iraq want the US to stay.
Cite your source.
>The people
> who are doing the killing are a minority of criminals, many from
> outside Iraq.
Cite your source.
>The worst thing that could happen to Iran would be to
> have 2 not so anti western Islamic democracies on their borders. They
> will do anything they can to prevent that. According to current
> political winds, Americans don't have the guts to hang in there
> (clearly the rest of the western world lacks the guts to even try).
> This is nowhere near as nasty as Vietnam, and comparisons are ludicrous.
>
Interestingly enough, I just heard a report *from* Vietnam - *they* think
the comparison is good - that the US government hasn't learned from it's
mistakes. Oh - they also like the US (at least the people).
But to sum it up - you made some assertions without apparent facts to back
it up. Rush again?
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 08:18:43
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
FredK wrote:
> "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:af57h.10728$mR4.3178@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163690777.125712.233650@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Meanwhile, all Muslims
> >> get painted with the same broad brush. The radical Muslims are a very
> >> small minority, but to watch the news on TV you'd think they were
> >> gathering at our borders readying for Jihad.
> >
> > So then this is all just an over exaggerated phenomenon that the right
> > wing has gotten ahold of and run with? We should not be worried at all
> > about Al Queda, Hezbollah, Iran, or Syria? And the "Good" Muslims will
> > take care of the "Bad" muslims and end terrorism and violence.
> >
> > Please explain more, you obviously see something here that I am missing.
>
> OK. Lets try something different.
>
> Radical Christianity is invisible to most Americans. They are a tiny
> minority of the population. Many of these people send their children to
> "camps" and are indoctrinated. Some will gladly kill a doctor who performs
> an abortion. The slightly less radical want to push the US from a secular
> government to become a Christian government, replace science with faith in
> the classroom, ban abortion, ban contraception, ban same gender sex.
>
Now it's your turn to offer up some sort of support for this view,
other than your own personal bias? So some people are opposed to
abortion. Some people don't believe in evolution > So what? Seems to me
they are participating in the legitimate politcal process. You seem to
infer that such people should be removed from the political landscape.
How? Just becasue you disagree? I run into a lot of Christian
fundamentalists, and I have yet to find one that wants a doctrinare
Christian government. They do want the classrooms to be controlled by
politics at the local level, as it is supposed to be though.
Name one insident where even the most radical of Christian
fundamentalists strapped explosives laced with rat poison onto
themselves and walked into say a wedding and set off the explosives?
You can offer up criminals who murder people at abortion clinics...and
they are criminals regardless of their personal justification...but how
many such criminals say kidnap dozens of people from busses and cut
their heads off? ...or radical Islamic fundamentalists don't do that?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 14:52:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 17 Nov 2006 08:18:43 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>Name one insident where even the most radical of Christian
>fundamentalists strapped explosives laced with rat poison onto
>themselves and walked into say a wedding and set off the explosives?
>You can offer up criminals who murder people at abortion clinics...and
>they are criminals regardless of their personal justification...but how
>many such criminals say kidnap dozens of people from busses and cut
>their heads off? ...or radical Islamic fundamentalists don't do that?
To say there's any equivelance between the behavior of Christian
fundamentalists and radical Islamists is absurd.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 20:43:42
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: To say there's any equivelance between the behavior of Christian
: fundamentalists and radical Islamists is absurd.
To say there's not is insane. The values and methods are pretty
much identical. Remember Operation Rescue?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 08:18:38
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> >It is true that many Iraqis were glad Saddam was ousted, but i don't
> >believe too many of them wish we'd stay much longer.
>
>
> Actually 34% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within a year and 29%
> say the US should stay for up to 2 years or until the security
> situation improves. Only 37% say they want the US to withdraw within
> the next 6 months. Overall, it doesn't look like too many the Iraqis
> are in favor of immediate US withdrawal.
If we are to believe those numbers then it looks like the opinions in
Iraq are about as varied as those over here. People just want to be
safe. Some think that our presence makes them more safe while others
think we are the cause of much of the violence.
But lets look at the results you posted.
37% want us out in 6 months or less.
Another 34% want us out within a year. That's 71% total that wants us
out in a year.
The other 29% want us out in two years.
So that's 100% of Iraqis that want us out within two years.
Thank you for backing up my point with some hard numbers.
BTW, Do you think Bush wants us out of there within two years?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 14:48:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 17 Nov 2006 08:18:38 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>But lets look at the results you posted.
>37% want us out in 6 months or less.
>Another 34% want us out within a year. That's 71% total that wants us
>out in a year.
>The other 29% want us out in two years.
>So that's 100% of Iraqis that want us out within two years.
>Thank you for backing up my point with some hard numbers.
The interesting thing is that nine months ago they did the same poll
and the results were: 35% within 6 months, 35% within a year and 29%
when security improves, which shows virtually no change.
What I read in the poll is that the Iraqi people would like the US to
eventually leave, but very few want the US to pull out immediately. If
the Iraqi military is able to take over and provide decent security to
the people, then the desire for US withdrawal will increase. If not,
the people will still want the US around.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 05:54:06
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Brian Foster wrote:
> > I would like to see Arabs and muslims all over the world denounce Al Queda
> and Hezbollah for what they are, but it aint happening.
Of course it is! Just go out and talk to any Muslim you know.
Oh, maybe that's the problem.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 14:05:22
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
> The interesting thing is that nine months ago they did the same poll
> and the results were: 35% within 6 months, 35% within a year and 29%
> when security improves, which shows virtually no change.
Sounds like either the Iraqis don't know what they want or else the
poll isn't very informative or accurate.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 23:30:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 17 Nov 2006 14:05:22 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>> The interesting thing is that nine months ago they did the same poll
>> and the results were: 35% within 6 months, 35% within a year and 29%
>> when security improves, which shows virtually no change.
>
>Sounds like either the Iraqis don't know what they want or else the
>poll isn't very informative or accurate.
They know what they want. They want the Iraqi government to take over
security and they want the US forces to leave. The problem is they
don't have confidence in the Iraqi government, so they are willing to
endure the US presence until progress is made.
The poll shows that the Iraqis do not have any more confidence in
their government's ability to protect them than they did 9 months ago.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:32:53
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:30:59 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>>Sounds like either the Iraqis don't know what they want or else the
>>poll isn't very informative or accurate.
>
>
>They know what they want. They want the Iraqi government to take over
>security and they want the US forces to leave. The problem is they
>don't have confidence in the Iraqi government, so they are willing to
>endure the US presence until progress is made.
Also - they want the Iraqi government and forces to be their kind of
Iraqis.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 13:49:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : To say there's any equivelance between the behavior of Christian
> : fundamentalists and radical Islamists is absurd.
>
> To say there's not is insane. The values and methods are pretty
> much identical. Remember Operation Rescue?
Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
Islam that they didn't like? How was it similar to a Dutch filmmaker
being murdered for making a film that criticized Islam's treatment of
women? Or to Muslims rioting and rampaging in the streets in several
countries because of a press report that an Army interrogator threw a
copy of the Koran in a toilet? Or to demands that an Afghan man be
executed for converting to Christianity?
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 23:26:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 17 Nov 2006 13:49:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> To say there's not is insane. The values and methods are pretty
>> much identical. Remember Operation Rescue?
>
>Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
>Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
>Islam that they didn't like? How was it similar to a Dutch filmmaker
>being murdered for making a film that criticized Islam's treatment of
>women? Or to Muslims rioting and rampaging in the streets in several
>countries because of a press report that an Army interrogator threw a
>copy of the Koran in a toilet? Or to demands that an Afghan man be
>executed for converting to Christianity?
Or flying passenger jets into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. The list
of terrorist acts committed by Islamic radicals is a long one,
including hundreds and hundreds of suicide bombers killing thousands
of innocent people. To compare these acts to Project Rescue is
ridiculous.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:05:34
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:26:58 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>>Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
>>Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
>>Islam that they didn't like? How was it similar to a Dutch filmmaker
>>being murdered for making a film that criticized Islam's treatment of
>>women? Or to Muslims rioting and rampaging in the streets in several
>>countries because of a press report that an Army interrogator threw a
>>copy of the Koran in a toilet? Or to demands that an Afghan man be
>>executed for converting to Christianity?
I agree that currently Christian leaders aren't pushing for Christian
states, and that is significant (even if they do ask the states to
pass laws promoting their values).
>Or flying passenger jets into the Twin Towers and Pentagon.
I'm one who don't find that suicide as a weapon is such a big deal.
The crimes committed by suicide bombers would not be mitigated in any
way by using bombs and missiles the way "civilized" people do. And I
also don't see that it is more evil for a civilian group to do the
bombing than for a government group to do the bombing.
It is hypocritical to do evil in God's name though. But using God's
name doesn't make the evil any more evil.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 22:48:07
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:26:58 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
> >>Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
> >>Islam that they didn't like? How was it similar to a Dutch filmmaker
> >>being murdered for making a film that criticized Islam's treatment of
> >>women? Or to Muslims rioting and rampaging in the streets in several
> >>countries because of a press report that an Army interrogator threw a
> >>copy of the Koran in a toilet? Or to demands that an Afghan man be
> >>executed for converting to Christianity?
>
> I agree that currently Christian leaders aren't pushing for Christian
> states, and that is significant (even if they do ask the states to
> pass laws promoting their values).
>
> >Or flying passenger jets into the Twin Towers and Pentagon.
>
> I'm one who don't find that suicide as a weapon is such a big deal.
> The crimes committed by suicide bombers would not be mitigated in any
> way by using bombs and missiles the way "civilized" people do. And I
> also don't see that it is more evil for a civilian group to do the
> bombing than for a government group to do the bombing.
>
> It is hypocritical to do evil in God's name though. But using God's
> name doesn't make the evil any more evil.
OK. If these Islamic radicals had missles and bombs like we do, they'd use
them against the same people they attack with suicide bombs. Palestinians
blow up an Israeli apartment building, and it's a big victory. Israeli
shells accidentally hit a Palestinian apartment building and it's an
atrocity. The deliberate attack on civilians is a victory, the accidental
attack on civilians is an atrocity. KLA thungs till muder Serbs on the
streets of Serbia...any Serbians in Albania shooting Albanians?
If nothing else, religin gives you a sense of right vs wrong. The evildoers
will always clain they are the same as everone else, but it really isn't
that hard to tell. There is no evidence that Israelis want to kill all
Palestinians. Hamas wants to kill all Israelis. Speaks for itself!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 17:55:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
: I agree that currently Christian leaders aren't pushing for Christian
: states,
The hell they aren't. You live in Colorado, right? So surely you're
aware of the ambitions of James Dobson?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 17:54:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
John B. <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: > : To say there's any equivelance between the behavior of Christian
: > : fundamentalists and radical Islamists is absurd.
: >
: > To say there's not is insane. The values and methods are pretty
: > much identical. Remember Operation Rescue?
:
: Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
: Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
: Islam that they didn't like?
1. People do something you don't like.
2. You respond by blowing up buildings and killing people, hoping to
terrorize them out of doing the things you don't like.
That's the very definition of terrorism.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 00:35:30
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3kq68aIhmdN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :
> : Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
> : Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
> : Islam that they didn't like?
>
> 1. People do something you don't like.
> 2. You respond by blowing up buildings and killing people, hoping to
> terrorize them out of doing the things you don't like.
>
> That's the very definition of terrorism.
>
Operation Rescue was clearly an organisation that used terrorism in pursuing
it's goals. I would say that this is very likely not the only example, but
you've already adequately made the point that within the Christian community
there exists a radicalism that is extreme enough to resort to terrorism.
That does not create an equivalence between the Islamic and Christian
communities in this regard. It only means that terrorists exist in both
communities. It remains an open question as to what extent such people find
support and sympathy within the two worlds. Off the cuff it appears obvious
that this sort of radicalism finds much more sympathy in the Islamic world,
__however__ I personally reserve judgement on that since I am wildly biased
by virtue of where I live and was raised.
I am open to any evidence that my suspicions are incorrect, but as of yet I
haven't seen any.
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 03:44:31
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3kq68aIhmdN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :
: > : Wow, there's a bizarre comparison. How was Operation Rescue similar to
: > : Muslims murdering Christians because the Pope said something about
: > : Islam that they didn't like?
: >
: > 1. People do something you don't like.
: > 2. You respond by blowing up buildings and killing people, hoping to
: > terrorize them out of doing the things you don't like.
: >
: > That's the very definition of terrorism.
: >
:
: Operation Rescue was clearly an organisation that used terrorism in pursuing
: it's goals. I would say that this is very likely not the only example, but
: you've already adequately made the point that within the Christian community
: there exists a radicalism that is extreme enough to resort to terrorism.
:
: That does not create an equivalence between the Islamic and Christian
: communities in this regard. It only means that terrorists exist in both
: communities. It remains an open question as to what extent such people find
: support and sympathy within the two worlds.
OK, I give you the Irish Republican Army. As you suggested, I can
probably keep producing examples.
: Off the cuff it appears obvious
: that this sort of radicalism finds much more sympathy in the Islamic world,
: __however__ I personally reserve judgement on that since I am wildly biased
: by virtue of where I live and was raised.
You know what makes the Islamic world similar to Ireland? The
residual effects of (mostly British) colonialism. In the Middle
East's case, there is also the juxtaposition of terrible poverty
against fabulous oil riches (and the resentment that naturally
follows). Extremists have always been able to exploit such
resentments for their own selfish purposes, be they Nazis in
Germany or Al Qaeda in the Islamic world. It ain't the religion,
it's the pervasive social injustice.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 14:22:05
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
> OK, I give you the Irish Republican Army. As you suggested, I can
> probably keep producing examples.
OK! Where did you learn the IRA was looking to kill all non Catholics and set up a
totalitarian theocracy?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 14:14:21
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
It ain't the religion,it's the pervasive social injustice.
Your lifestyle represents pervasive social injustice. You gonna give it up in the
name of "enlightenment?". Some do you know. If you don't, you are a hypocrit.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:02:02
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3kr8gdIr9gN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com> wrote:
> :
> : Operation Rescue was clearly an organisation that used terrorism in
> pursuing
> : it's goals. I would say that this is very likely not the only example,
> but
> : you've already adequately made the point that within the Christian
> community
> : there exists a radicalism that is extreme enough to resort to terrorism.
> :
> : That does not create an equivalence between the Islamic and Christian
> : communities in this regard. It only means that terrorists exist in both
> : communities. It remains an open question as to what extent such people
> find
> : support and sympathy within the two worlds.
>
> OK, I give you the Irish Republican Army. As you suggested, I can
> probably keep producing examples.
However, this is not a good example. The IRA was not a per se Christian
organisation, and therefore has very little to do with the topic at hand.
The terrorism of the IRA sheds as much light on Christianity as the
terrorism of the PLO does on Islam. That is to say, none at all. They
were both completely political organizations that just happen to have been
populated exclusively by members of their respective religions, assuming we
discount the athiest/agnostics that were undoubtedly among them.
>
> : Off the cuff it appears obvious
> : that this sort of radicalism finds much more sympathy in the Islamic
> world,
> : __however__ I personally reserve judgement on that since I am wildly
> biased
> : by virtue of where I live and was raised.
>
> You know what makes the Islamic world similar to Ireland? The
> residual effects of (mostly British) colonialism.
They have that in common, but is doesn't make them similiar. One of the key
differences is the role religion plays in their respective societies.
Another is the very dissimilar cultural canvasses that British colonialism
put it's mark on. Irish and Arabic cultures are worlds apart. Not to
mention the obvious fact that in the context of this discussion the
colonists shared a religion with the Irish, whereas their religion was
fundamentally incompatible with that of the Arabs.
In the Middle
> East's case, there is also the juxtaposition of terrible poverty
> against fabulous oil riches (and the resentment that naturally
> follows). Extremists have always been able to exploit such
> resentments for their own selfish purposes, be they Nazis in
> Germany or Al Qaeda in the Islamic world. It ain't the religion,
> it's the pervasive social injustice.
But now you are squarely in the political realm and way outside how a
particular religion does or doesn't influence the politics. Of course
political considerations are important to all aspects of this discussion in
ways that transcend any particular religion. But, so far as I can tell,
your assertion is that there is no qualitative difference in how Islam
relates to terrorism and how Christianity does.
The key to me is that Al Qaeda's goals are not political. They are
religious. Politics are only a means to the religious ends. That can be
said of Operation Rescue as well, but they is far more a splinter group in
relation to mainstream Christianity than Al Qaeda is to mainstream Islam.
Or so my biases lead me to believe :-)
Scott
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:53:04
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Gonna get straight to it:
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
: The key to me is that Al Qaeda's goals are not political. They are
: religious.
Oh, no, they are quite political. Their main mission, ostensibly, is
the overthrow of the Saudi royal family. That's entirely political.
Wahabbism is just the glue that keeps the soldiers in line.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 14:20:14
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3kubndIn4jN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> : The key to me is that Al Qaeda's goals are not political. They are
> : religious.
>
> Oh, no, they are quite political. Their main mission, ostensibly, is
> the overthrow of the Saudi royal family. That's entirely political.
> Wahabbism is just the glue that keeps the soldiers in line.
>
Yes, it is difficult to precisely say what I mean. Just about everything
under the sun is political, including Al Qaeda & the Vatican. I meant to
say that Al Qaeda's goals are primarily religious (in other words, not
implying that there are no political overtones, but rather that the
religious ones predominate).
Their main mission in the beginning was to overthrow the Saudi royal family,
_because they had allowed infidels into the holy land_. Obviously the
desire to unseat the leaders of a country is political. The motiviation for
doing so: not necessarily (as in this case).
Scott
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 06:41:04
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Gonna get straight to it:
>
> S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com> wrote:
>
> : The key to me is that Al Qaeda's goals are not political. They are
> : religious.
>
> Oh, no, they are quite political. Their main mission, ostensibly, is
> the overthrow of the Saudi royal family. That's entirely political.
> Wahabbism is just the glue that keeps the soldiers in line.
One of the goals of bin Laden was the overthrow of the Saudi Royal
Family. However, bin Laden has been made insignificant and Al Qaeda has
been co-opted by the greater Muslim fundamentalists cause.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 19:33:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:54:19 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>1. People do something you don't like.
>2. You respond by blowing up buildings and killing people, hoping to
>terrorize them out of doing the things you don't like.
>
>That's the very definition of terrorism.
No, the definition of terrorism is the other guys do the bad stuff.
When my side does the bad stuff, it is righteous.
Not that the corpses care.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 12:42:13
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2006 08:18:43 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Name one insident where even the most radical of Christian
> >fundamentalists strapped explosives laced with rat poison onto
> >themselves and walked into say a wedding and set off the explosives?
> >You can offer up criminals who murder people at abortion clinics...and
> >they are criminals regardless of their personal justification...but how
> >many such criminals say kidnap dozens of people from busses and cut
> >their heads off? ...or radical Islamic fundamentalists don't do that?
>
> To say there's any equivelance between the behavior of Christian
> fundamentalists and radical Islamists is absurd.
That's the radical SP view though.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 12:40:56
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
FredK wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1163733925.496522.55410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > FWIW, that was one of the most totally lame responses I have ever seen
> > to any post I have ever made.
> >
>
> You are a professor of what? Read over your own responses and then use it
> as the baseline definition of "lame".
Nice non response. I guess you don't have to cite anything to support
your opinions?
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 01:05:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
the Moderator wrote:
> > > Katrina? You've got to be kidding. Don't even go there, because if
> > you do, you've touted the worst possible shit from the right wing. It
> > was a debacle, Brownie.
>
> Obviously not everything went perfectly, but it was the fastest and largest
> response by the federal government in US history.
You make yourself look silly when you try to put perfume on that pig.
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 12:13:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> : I agree that currently Christian leaders aren't pushing for Christian
> : states,
>
> The hell they aren't. You live in Colorado, right? So surely you're
> aware of the ambitions of James Dobson?
C'mon dude, you know you can't judge a whole group by the actions of a
few fundamentalist whackos. Unless they are Muslim fundamentalist
whackos, of course.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 14:05:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2006 13:14:26 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That number very clearly includes you. The point of the survey was that
> >Iraqis want the US out of their country. Do they have their heads up
> >their butts, too?
>
> Iraq is like anyplace else - there are a lot of people with very
> different opinions. The trouble is, when people are willing to kill
> for their opinions, it doesn't matter much whether one opinion is a
> majority opinion or a minority opinion.
Most Iraqis are not willing to kill for their opinions. Most are just
regular people trying to survive the destruction of their country.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 23:49:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 21 Nov 2006 14:05:41 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Iraq is like anyplace else - there are a lot of people with very
>> different opinions. The trouble is, when people are willing to kill
>> for their opinions, it doesn't matter much whether one opinion is a
>> majority opinion or a minority opinion.
>
>
>Most Iraqis are not willing to kill for their opinions. Most are just
>regular people trying to survive the destruction of their country.
True enough. But there are enough willing to kill for their beliefs
that the killing will continue - no matter what the majority wish.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 13:14:26
From: John B.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > S McFarlane wrote:
> >
> >>"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
> >>news:455c572c@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> Big SNIP
> >
> > Nearly every opinion poll in the U.S. has shown that roughly 6 in 10
> > Americans also back a withdrawal within a year.
> >
> > http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
> >
>
> Nearly 60% of most Americans have their head up their butt when it comes
> to understanding events outside of the Continental US.
That number very clearly includes you. The point of the survey was that
Iraqis want the US out of their country. Do they have their heads up
their butts, too?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 14:31:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On 21 Nov 2006 13:14:26 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>That number very clearly includes you. The point of the survey was that
>Iraqis want the US out of their country. Do they have their heads up
>their butts, too?
Iraq is like anyplace else - there are a lot of people with very
different opinions. The trouble is, when people are willing to kill
for their opinions, it doesn't matter much whether one opinion is a
majority opinion or a minority opinion.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 21:17:10
From: Joe
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>John B. wrote:
>>
>>>S McFarlane wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:455c572c@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>>
>> Big SNIP
>>
>>>Nearly every opinion poll in the U.S. has shown that roughly 6 in 10
>>>Americans also back a withdrawal within a year.
>>>
>>>http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
>>>
>>
>>Nearly 60% of most Americans have their head up their butt when it comes
>>to understanding events outside of the Continental US.
>
>
> That number very clearly includes you. The point of the survey was that
> Iraqis want the US out of their country. Do they have their heads up
> their butts, too?
I cut the survey to address a single point. Too difficult for you to
follow?
The statement made by the editorialist is NOT germane to the survey.
Does that make it easier for you now?
Joe
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 12:54:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:455c572c@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> > Should we have "stayed the course" in Vietnam?
>
> No. We had no national interest in South Vietnam.
>
> > All of the reasons for "going to war" in Iraq have either been shown to be
> > wrong (no WMD's) or we have accomplished (remove & kill Saddam).
>
> But this isn't really relevant to the question of 'what now?' Things have
> changed quite a bit since 2003. If you believe that it was wrong-headed to
> attack Iraq in the first place, then you and I are in 100% agreement on
> that.
>
> We are now there for a much more
> > nebulous goal of bringing a pro-western Democracy to Iraq - or at least
> > that *was* the goal. At this point I think most people will settle for a
> > stable government of any kind. We are being used by many Iraqis right now
> > as a shield to position themselves for post-US Iraq.
>
> IMO, the Iraqi Democracy bit is simply PR. My guess is that the real goal
> now is a stable government that won't be overrun the moment we leave by
> factions with decidedly anti-American tendencies If that means a
> dictatorship, I suspect we would grumble about it and be thankful to be able
> to withdraw.
>
> >
> > The point is, Mission Accomplished. We toppled Saddam. Made the world
> > safe from its WMD's. The Iraqi's elected a government. We now turn the
> > government of Iraq over to the Iraqi's. Give them a time table - with
> > "some" flexibility - and tell them we'll help you fix things - but our job
> > is done. Show them that our intent was NOT to be a permanent occupier.
> > That our intent was NOT to secure the oil fields for Exxon.
>
> I think some variation on this theme is the only real option. My point was
> not that we should stay. My point was that it is extremely important how we
> leave. If the Democrats misplay their position now, they could pay dearly
> for it down the road. Our national security could take a serious beating if
> the move is premature or is done simply to get out with no regard for future
> scenarios. As bad for our interests as it would be, U.S. military forces in
> Iraq 10 years from now is not the worst possible outcome, JMO.
>
> >
> > The streets of Cairo have problems all of there own. Even the content
> > free film clip that originated this thread makes it clear that the
> > "threat" does not have a single locus. The problems inside Iraq and not
> > from the outside, but ones that are longstanding and internal. Until they
> > are FORCED to make the hard decisions to compromise - it will not happen.
> > And that will not happen until we LEAVE.
>
> The jihadists in 1980's Afghanistan became heroes in the Muslim world
> because they drove out the godless enemy. That played a pivotal role in the
> ascension of bin Laden among radical islamists. That is precisely the sort
> of thing that could happen if our withdrawal is perceived to be the
> equivalent of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. For what it's worth,
> I'm beginning to believe that this effect is unavoidable at this point no
> matter what we do.
>
> You are correct that anti-Western sentiments in the Muslim world have a
> complex set of causes. But we happen to be focusing on one of those at the
> moment. I've not said or believe that Iraq is the only (or even most
> important) cause. But since the topic at hand is Iraq....
Indeed:
New Survey: Iraqis Want a Speedy U.S. Exit -- and Back Attacks on Our
Forces
By E&P Staff
Published: November 21, 2006 10:20 AM ET
NEW YORK Past surveys have hinted at this result, but a new poll in
Iraq makes it more stark than ever: the Iraqi people want the U.S. to
exit their country. And most Iraqis now approve of attacks on U.S.
forces, even though 94% express disapproval of al-Qaeda.
At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now
the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by
much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found
that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a
year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S.
may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast,
earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S.
stay.
By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more
violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would
improve if we left.
Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among
both Shiites and Sunnis. The report states: "Support for attacks on
U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position-now six in ten.
Support appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all
ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent
military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even
if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the U.S. were to commit to
withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops
say that their support for attacks would diminish."
The backing for attacks on our forces has jumped to 61% from 47% in
January.
Among Iraqis overall, 77% percent prefer that a strong government get
rid of militias, including 100% of the Sunnis polled and 82% of Kurds.
But "the Shia population in Baghdad is more skeptical than elsewhere
about the wisdom of disarming the militias," a report by WPO states. In
Baghdad, Shias say they want militias to continue to protect their
security (59%).
The national survey reached 1,150 Iraqis. It was conducted by the
Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of
Maryland.
Nearly every opinion poll in the U.S. has shown that roughly 6 in 10
Americans also back a withdrawal within a year.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:59:56
From: Joe
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
John B. wrote:
> S McFarlane wrote:
>
>>"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
>>news:455c572c@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
Big SNIP
>
> Nearly every opinion poll in the U.S. has shown that roughly 6 in 10
> Americans also back a withdrawal within a year.
>
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
>
Nearly 60% of most Americans have their head up their butt when it comes
to understanding events outside of the Continental US. How many can
even find Afghanistan or Iraq on a world map unless the names are in big
letters using crayon?
Joe
|
|
