NationStates Jolt Archive

MAHMOOD MAMDANI: For the last week, I have been thinking of the city of Fallujah, and thinking about Fallujah has not been easy while one reads The New York Times. I looked for an article which would tell me something about the history of resistance in the city of Fallujah. I didn't find it in the Times. I found it in The Guardian in London, and the Guardian piece told me that this resistance began with the massacre of April 28, 2003, when parents and children in a school which had been occupied by American soldiers, had started demonstrating, and 18 of them were killed in cold blood, 60 were injured, and began the resistance to the US occupation in Fallujah. Before that, not a bullet had been fired. I then began to look for a story on the history of repression. Again, I didn't find it in the Times, but I found it in The Independent. And The Independent of London informed me that actually the best model, the model suited to the kind of operation that was going on in Fallujah, I had thought it was Jenin, but actually The Independent informed me it wasn’t really Jenin, but it was the town of Hama in Syria, where in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over the town and had called on the population to rise up against the government of Asaad. And the government surrounded the town with tanks, weaponry, and simply demolished it. 10,000 civilians died. One of the aftermaths of that operation was the US State Department put the government of Syria on its list of terrorist governments, and the next operation now to evoke Hama is what's going on in Fallujah. I speak about Fallujah also because I think that it is symptomatic of a larger development. And I think that that development is best understood by contrasting our present current times with the situation during the war in Vietnam. I think of western empires, contemporary western empires and the American Empire also, as distinct from empires of old, even distinct from the Soviet Empire in one way, which is that they tend to combine despotism abroad with democracy at home. And to the extent that they do so, to the extent that democratic institutions at home breathe life, breathe democratic life, to that extent, these empires can be potentially self-correcting. And this was seen during the Vietnam period in the sense that there was a powerful anti-war movement and it was institutionally anchored, I think one in the media and, two, in the universities. Well, a lot has changed since the Vietnam War. And the change is reflected very well in the media. It is, I think, partly a result of a political shift. Successive administrations since defeat in Vietnam held the media responsible for the defeat. After the killing fields of Cambodia, this accusation had a ring of truth in it, because the accusation was that you exposed our atrocities, but you didn't expose their atrocities. Since Cambodia, the tendency of the media has been to -- since Cambodia, the tendency of the media has been to listen to and relay the administrations’ version of their atrocities and this trend came to a glorious conclusion with embedded reporters in Iraq. Partly the result has been a change in the marketplace, and the change in the marketplace is a change of ownership. Big corporate media has come to be owned in some cases by Hollywood, in other cases by defense contractors. For Hollywood, news has become entertainment, and defense contractors are shy of debates. The result, I think, for the American polity is a shrinking of the democratic arena, most evident in the recent elections. I noted that in the debates, neither Abu Ghraib nor Guantanamo nor Fallujah were ever matters of discussion. More and more political issues are framed in a language of no choice. They are framed in a language of evil. They are framed in a language of religion. The language of evil also began, I believe, the current round of the language of evil follows defeat in Vietnam. Ronald Reagan, speaking before the American Association of Evangelicals, recast the Soviet Union as an evil empire, and I think we should be quite aware, quite alert to the political uses of the notion of evil, the fact that evil is something with which someone cannot co-exist, the fact that the war against evil is a permanent war. It must go on until either victory or death. You can hear echoes of the War on Terror in this. And the language now, of course, is much more a language of culture. After 9/11, I was struck by reports in The New York Times about how the Koran had become a best seller item, about how more and more Americans were going to bookshelves to buy the Koran to get an understanding of the motivation of those who had hit the Twin Towers. And I wonder if the people of Fallujah are trying to find Bibles to read to understand the motivation. [Applause] And I think not. I think not. And I think the reason lies not in the people of the US. The reason lies in the public debate and the public intellectuals, and the way they have framed the public debate in this country. They have framed it in a culture talk. They have framed it with this supposition that it's the culture of people, which is a clue to their politics. Except the peoples of the world are divided into three. There are those whose politics is simply their bodies, and is explained as a biological politics of tribalism. There are others whose politics is their community, understood as religious community. And then, of course, there is the western world, whose culture is historical, who make their culture, who are not trapped in their culture, like the rest of the world. Well, let me conclude. I know its five minutes and I just want to say in conclusion, that this is symptomatic of a larger crisis. And I believe the larger crisis is a crisis of the human rights movement. The human rights movement, which followed the end of the Second World War, was built on two pre-suppositions. One was that the violators of rights would be mainly third-world countries, newly independent third-world countries. And the second presupposition was that the enforcers of rights would be the big powers. Well, now we are in a world where the biggest power is the key major violator of rights. And in the face of this, I believe the human rights movement today is in a state of paralysis intellectually and politically. That is our challenge. Thank you.

Professor Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University, author of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror.
Democracynow.org

So restricting the freedom of the media will stabilize a Democracy? :rolleyes:

no we need to liberate the media from corporate facism and rightwing liars

How can you be totally sure that the sources cited are totally accurate. I'm not saying that the US media is perfect, but I'm saying that just because it isn't doesn't mean you should automatically trust it.

no we need to liberate the media from corporate facism and rightwing liars
by what? Nationalising it? Wonderful idea, so we can have government facism and leftwing liars in charge?

Be skeptical of all, not just sources who disagree with you.

How can you be totally sure that the sources cited are totally accurate. I'm not saying that the US media is perfect, but I'm saying that just because it isn't doesn't mean you should automatically trust it.
I agree but 98% of all sources are more relevant then the corporate media in America which endorses Bushs neocon terrorist agenda

by what? Nationalising it? Wonderful idea, so we can have government facism and leftwing liars in charge?

Be skeptical of all, not just sources who disagree with you.
the airwaves belong to the people--we need more community based local stations and to hear the voices of the noble workers

I came in here to agree with you but...

You have such horrible reasons and reasoning it isn't funny.

A thriving local media is vital, and it should be lead by individuals who desire to do so with their own resources, but in the modern era, when so much happens so rapidly it is also important to have a national media to get out info to the entire nation. Now I'm not so much a fan of CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC's ability to slant the issues, but they are important clearinghouses for info.

And anyways, CNN, Foxnews and MSNBC are only cable, hence they are paid for services. If you want local media, then pick up a local newspaper, or watch a local broadcast TV station.

Since its from DemocracyNow, you have to figure that the exact opposite is more likely to be true than what the article says.

they are like IndyMedia "If someone writes it, it must be true".

and thinking about Fallujah has not been easy while one reads The New York Times. I looked for an article which would tell me something about the history of resistance in the city of Fallujah. I didn't find it in the Times.

thats a load of crap. The local papers have been reporting Fallujah stories for weeks. They weren't all headlines, but to say you can't find them is an outright lie. The Times, News and Post all have articles and photos of the situation.

Since its from DemocracyNow, you have to figure that the exact opposite is more likely to be true than what the article says.
the useless corporate media looks to democracynow for all the breaking scandals

Why am I not surprised that it comes from Columbia university? -rolls his eyes and sighs- This is the same Columbia university in which the President has ordered an offical investigation into immidation conducted against any student who is pro-american,pro-israeli or jewish. The same Columbia University who's foreign studies department(more specifically the Middle Eastern studies department) has been constant called a haven for anti-western feelings.

But nevermind how entirely biased Columbia university is..how about we discuss just what this guy proposes to change all of this? Its easy to critize the US left and right its hard to offer any solutions to fix a matter.

Except the peoples of the world are divided into three. There are those whose politics is simply their bodies, and is explained as a biological politics of tribalism. There are others whose politics is their community, understood as religious community. And then, of course, there is the western world, whose culture is historical, who make their culture, who are not trapped in their culture, like the rest of the world

This is complete rubbish, at every level. But apart from this paragraph he makes some good points

I came in here to agree with you but...

You have such horrible reasons and reasoning it isn't funny.
I agree-- there is much that can be learned thru horror

I think the Professor is doing just the right thing: he reads more than one newspaper. OK, it's expensive, but if you want to know at least a piece of the objective truth, you have to see more than one opinion. There must be some things both sides agree on; the rest may or may not be pragmatism, radicalism, press freedom... call it what you will...

Why am I not surprised that it comes from Columbia university? -rolls his eyes and sighs- This is the same Columbia university in which the President has ordered an offical investigation into immidation conducted against any student who is pro-american,pro-israeli or jewish. The same Columbia University who's foreign studies department(more specifically the Middle Eastern studies department) has been constant called a haven for anti-western feelings.

But nevermind how entirely biased Columbia university is..how about we discuss just what this guy proposes to change all of this? Its easy to critize the US left and right its hard to offer any solutions to fix a matter.
we had a window of opportunity on nov 2nd but the red states chose Barabas instead

by what? Nationalising it? Wonderful idea, so we can have government facism and leftwing liars in charge?

Be skeptical of all, not just sources who disagree with you.yeah because there are SOOOO many left wigners in control of the country :rolleyes:

we had a window of opportunity on nov 2nd but the red states chose Barabas instead

Oh please if you think changing Presidents would have resulted in anything then you are as blindsided as the Democratic party.

There is one thing about Kerry that sticks out as true no matter what(And no not his medals) his ability to switch stances whenever it was appropriate for him to do so. You go find comments he made back in 1998 when Clinton was still in office. He not only supported bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox(I believe this was the name of the 48 hour cruise missile barrage) he advocated the removal of Saddam Hussien through use of military force. When did he change his stance? When Howard Dean pulled ahead with a clearly anti-war message. The thing that sunk Dean however was the fact he was a nutjob. Okay fine he was screaming to talk over a crowd..but my ass did he yell like that for any other reason other than him being alittle off his rocker.

Oh please if you think changing Presidents would have resulted in anything then you are as blindsided as the Democratic party.

There is one thing about Kerry that sticks out as true no matter what(And no not his medals) his ability to switch stances whenever it was appropriate for him to do so. You go find comments he made back in 1998 when Clinton was still in office. He not only supported bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox(I believe this was the name of the 48 hour cruise missile barrage) he advocated the removal of Saddam Hussien through use of military force. When did he change his stance? When Howard Dean pulled ahead with a clearly anti-war message. The thing that sunk Dean however was the fact he was a nutjob. Okay fine he was screaming to talk over a crowd..but my ass did he yell like that for any other reason other than him being alittle off his rocker.

oh no, dean yelled funny in a talking spree! he must be a fucking nutcase! totally crazier than a guy that sat completely dumbfounded when told the nation was under or attack, or hte same guy who murders the english language. ill take a screaming nutjub any day over a idiotic simpleton

oh no, dean yelled funny in a talking spree! he must be a fucking nutcase! totally crazier than a guy that sat completely dumbfounded when told the nation was under or attack, or hte same guy who murders the english language. ill take a screaming nutjub any day over a idiotic simpleton

The idiotic simpleton wont launch nuclear weapons. The idiotic simpleton managed to be elected twice to President and govenor of the (3rd or 4th) largest state in the US. The nutcase lost in NH and blew a fuse. And only managed to win a primary in his own home state after he dropped out of running...

Oh..and what was Bush supposed to do? Teachers there even thanked Bush that day for remaining calm..honestly was he suppose to break down and panic? Would that have made you feel better? Or how about find the nearest telephone booth and become Superman? Bush was in a school. He wasnt near a command and control center. They had to fly him to a former SAC base to take up C&C operations. This entire country had no idea what was going on...neither did the President or the military until it was way to late. But hey..he didnt panic and scream,or jump up and leave without so much as a word..(which would have probably also drawn complaints on his ability to be easily scared..but hey..whatever right you just dont like him so never give him the benefit of the doubt.)

Just wanna toss this quickly in..on 9/11 if you were President what would YOU have done?

no we need to liberate the media from corporate facism and rightwing liars

no we need to liberate the media from corporate facism and rightwing liars

If the media is so 'right-wing' why did they embark on a massive smear campaign against Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign? Why did they destroy Joe McCarthy? Why did they launch similar campaigns against anticommunist governments around the world, while portraying communists as 'liberators,' 'freedom fighters,' 'agrarian reformers,' etc.? Our government was not the only culprit responsible for the betrayal of China, South Vietnam, Rhodesia, South Africa, etc. Edgar Snow and others brainwashed the American public into thinking Chiang Kai-shek was the epitome of despotism, corruption, etc. and that Mao Tse-tung was an 'agrarian reformer,' 'true man of the people,' etc. Herbert Matthews- who had, in the 1930s, sympathized with the communists during the Spanish Civil War- bombarded the public with lies during the Cuban revolution, saying that Castro was not a communist, in spite of the warnings of Earl E.T. Smith (the U.S. Ambassador to Cuba), Ezra Taft Benson (Secretary of Agriculture), Robert Welch, Castro's former pilot, and others. As bad as Batista was, he was not nearly the Hitler-reincarnation Matthews portrayed him to be. Matthews whitewashed Castro, covered up the revolutionaries' atrocities and terrorism against the Cuban people, and portrayed Castro as not only a non-communist, but an 'anticommunist.' The media also manipulated Americans into believing that South Vietnam's tin-pot tyrant, Ngo Dinh Diem, was a champion of liberty, a popular and democratic leader, an anticommunist, etc., when he was in fact a despot who presided over a rampantly corrupt and nepotistic regime that imprisoned and executed scores of those who opposed him, and did everything he could to destroy anticommunism in his country (the Binh Xuyen, Bao Dai, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, etc.). They also portrayed Diem's head of the secret police, Pham Ngoc Thao (a communist spy and the former head of Ho Chi Minh's intelligence in the south), as an anticommunist hero. The media's smearathon reached a peak in the 1970s, when it launched many non-stop campaigns simultaneously, against Ian Smith of Rhodesia, the Shah of Iran, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, etc. The media portrayed Somoza- who permitted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and just about anything else you can think of- as a corrupt tyrant. Never mind the fact that the newspaper La Prensa called Somoza a SOB and other less-pleasant things everyday, and was permitted to do so. Never mind the fact that there were less than sixty 'political' prisoners (who had been arrested for things such as assault, robbery, etc.). Never mind the fact that, whereas anti-Somoza demonstrations rarely drew more than 10,000 people, pro-Somoza demonstrations drew over 150,000. Never mind the fact that Somoza was more pro-American than most American politicians are. Never mind the prosperity he brought Nicaragua. Never mind Somoza's extremely lenient policies toward the revolutionaries. Never mind the fact that Somoza was freely, fairly, and democratically elected (in an election supervised by the OAS). The media accused Somoza of having thousands of political prisoners who suffered abominable torture and worse. Somoza invited anyone who cared to look to check out the prisons and see for themselves that prisoners were well-treated. Dan Blather himself checked them out. He interviewed Somoza for over two and a half hours, yet only about seven minutes of that was shown on TV (the rest was old footage of Nicaragua and other things completely unrelated). In earlier years, the media accused Somoza of profiting from aid sent after the devastating earthquake in Managua in 1972. No evidence has ever materialized proving this. Quite the contrary; even most of Somoza's harshest critics in Nicaragua praised his leadership during that crisis. Meanwhile, the Sandinistas- who castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, gouged out eyeballs, beat people nearly to death, doused people in gasoline and burnt them to death, cut open pregnant women's wombs, shot men in front of their families, butchered children, kidnapped, tortured, pilfered, etc.- were portrayed as 'freedom fighters,' fighting against big, bad President Somoza. Thanks to the pro-communist Carter Administration and our pro-communist media, the Sandinistas conquered Nicaragua, set up a Cuba-like police state that jailed and killed thousands and stamped out almost every vestige of freedom, and helped spread terror to other parts of the world, including Angola and El Salvador. Another thing worth noting is the media's warm regard and praise for Mikhail Gorbachev, the KGB monster whose regime massacred over 500,000 Afghanis.
I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point.

Dean revitalized the democractic party and he woulda defeated Bush if he was the nominee. What I wouldve done to stop 911 was to heed the specific warnings and prevented it

If the media is so 'right-wing' why did they embark on a massive smear campaign against Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign? Why did they destroy Joe McCarthy? Why did they launch similar campaigns against anticommunist governments around the world, while portraying communists as 'liberators,' 'freedom fighters,' 'agrarian reformers,' etc.? Our government was not the only culprit responsible for the betrayal of China, South Vietnam, Rhodesia, South Africa, etc. Edgar Snow and others brainwashed the American public into thinking Chiang Kai-shek was the epitome of despotism, corruption, etc. and that Mao Tse-tung was an 'agrarian reformer,' 'true man of the people,' etc. Herbert Matthews- who had, in the 1930s, sympathized with the communists during the Spanish Civil War- bombarded the public with lies during the Cuban revolution, saying that Castro was not a communist, in spite of the warnings of Earl E.T. Smith (the U.S. Ambassador to Cuba), Ezra Taft Benson (Secretary of Agriculture), Robert Welch, Castro's former pilot, and others. As bad as Batista was, he was not nearly the Hitler-reincarnation Matthews portrayed him to be. Matthews whitewashed Castro, covered up the revolutionaries' atrocities and terrorism against the Cuban people, and portrayed Castro as not only a non-communist, but an 'anticommunist.' The media also manipulated Americans into believing that South Vietnam's tin-pot tyrant, Ngo Dinh Diem, was a champion of liberty, a popular and democratic leader, an anticommunist, etc., when he was in fact a despot who presided over a rampantly corrupt and nepotistic regime that imprisoned and executed scores of those who opposed him, and did everything he could to destroy anticommunism in his country (the Binh Xuyen, Bao Dai, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, etc.). They also portrayed Diem's head of the secret police, Pham Ngoc Thao (a communist spy and the former head of Ho Chi Minh's intelligence in the south), as an anticommunist hero. The media's smearathon reached a peak in the 1970s, when it launched many non-stop campaigns simultaneously, against Ian Smith of Rhodesia, the Shah of Iran, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, etc. The media portrayed Somoza- who permitted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and just about anything else you can think of- as a corrupt tyrant. Never mind the fact that the newspaper La Prensa called Somoza a SOB and other less-pleasant things everyday, and was permitted to do so. Never mind the fact that there were less than sixty 'political' prisoners (who had been arrested for things such as assault, robbery, etc.). Never mind the fact that, whereas anti-Somoza demonstrations rarely drew more than 10,000 people, pro-Somoza demonstrations drew over 150,000. Never mind the fact that Somoza was more pro-American than most American politicians are. Never mind the prosperity he brought Nicaragua. Never mind Somoza's extremely lenient policies toward the revolutionaries. Never mind the fact that Somoza was freely, fairly, and democratically elected (in an election supervised by the OAS). The media accused Somoza of having thousands of political prisoners who suffered abominable torture and worse. Somoza invited anyone who cared to look to check out the prisons and see for themselves that prisoners were well-treated. Dan Blather himself checked them out. He interviewed Somoza for over two and a half hours, yet only about seven minutes of that was shown on TV (the rest was old footage of Nicaragua and other things completely unrelated). In earlier years, the media accused Somoza of profiting from aid sent after the devastating earthquake in Managua in 1972. No evidence has ever materialized proving this. Quite the contrary; even most of Somoza's harshest critics in Nicaragua praised his leadership during that crisis. Meanwhile, the Sandinistas- who castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, gouged out eyeballs, beat people nearly to death, doused people in gasoline and burnt them to death, cut open pregnant women's wombs, shot men in front of their families, butchered children, kidnapped, tortured, pilfered, etc.- were portrayed as 'freedom fighters,' fighting against big, bad President Somoza. Thanks to the pro-communist Carter Administration and our pro-communist media, the Sandinistas conquered Nicaragua, set up a Cuba-like police state that jailed and killed thousands and stamped out almost every vestige of freedom, and helped spread terror to other parts of the world, including Angola and El Salvador. Another thing worth noting is the media's warm regard and praise for Mikhail Gorbachev, the KGB monster whose regime massacred over 500,000 Afghanis.
I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point.

Please, no flaming if anyone disagrees. Thanks!

If the media is so 'right-wing' why did they embark on a massive smear campaign against Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign? Why did they destroy Joe McCarthy? Why did they launch similar campaigns against anticommunist governments around the world, while portraying communists as 'liberators,' 'freedom fighters,' 'agrarian reformers,' etc.? Our government was not the only culprit responsible for the betrayal of China, South Vietnam, Rhodesia, South Africa, etc. Edgar Snow and others brainwashed the American public into thinking Chiang Kai-shek was the epitome of despotism, corruption, etc. and that Mao Tse-tung was an 'agrarian reformer,' 'true man of the people,' etc. Herbert Matthews- who had, in the 1930s, sympathized with the communists during the Spanish Civil War- bombarded the public with lies during the Cuban revolution, saying that Castro was not a communist, in spite of the warnings of Earl E.T. Smith (the U.S. Ambassador to Cuba), Ezra Taft Benson (Secretary of Agriculture), Robert Welch, Castro's former pilot, and others. As bad as Batista was, he was not nearly the Hitler-reincarnation Matthews portrayed him to be. Matthews whitewashed Castro, covered up the revolutionaries' atrocities and terrorism against the Cuban people, and portrayed Castro as not only a non-communist, but an 'anticommunist.' The media also manipulated Americans into believing that South Vietnam's tin-pot tyrant, Ngo Dinh Diem, was a champion of liberty, a popular and democratic leader, an anticommunist, etc., when he was in fact a despot who presided over a rampantly corrupt and nepotistic regime that imprisoned and executed scores of those who opposed him, and did everything he could to destroy anticommunism in his country (the Binh Xuyen, Bao Dai, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, etc.). They also portrayed Diem's head of the secret police, Pham Ngoc Thao (a communist spy and the former head of Ho Chi Minh's intelligence in the south), as an anticommunist hero. The media's smearathon reached a peak in the 1970s, when it launched many non-stop campaigns simultaneously, against Ian Smith of Rhodesia, the Shah of Iran, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, etc. The media portrayed Somoza- who permitted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and just about anything else you can think of- as a corrupt tyrant. Never mind the fact that the newspaper La Prensa called Somoza a SOB and other less-pleasant things everyday, and was permitted to do so. Never mind the fact that there were less than sixty 'political' prisoners (who had been arrested for things such as assault, robbery, etc.). Never mind the fact that, whereas anti-Somoza demonstrations rarely drew more than 10,000 people, pro-Somoza demonstrations drew over 150,000. Never mind the fact that Somoza was more pro-American than most American politicians are. Never mind the prosperity he brought Nicaragua. Never mind Somoza's extremely lenient policies toward the revolutionaries. Never mind the fact that Somoza was freely, fairly, and democratically elected (in an election supervised by the OAS). The media accused Somoza of having thousands of political prisoners who suffered abominable torture and worse. Somoza invited anyone who cared to look to check out the prisons and see for themselves that prisoners were well-treated. Dan Blather himself checked them out. He interviewed Somoza for over two and a half hours, yet only about seven minutes of that was shown on TV (the rest was old footage of Nicaragua and other things completely unrelated). In earlier years, the media accused Somoza of profiting from aid sent after the devastating earthquake in Managua in 1972. No evidence has ever materialized proving this. Quite the contrary; even most of Somoza's harshest critics in Nicaragua praised his leadership during that crisis. Meanwhile, the Sandinistas- who castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, gouged out eyeballs, beat people nearly to death, doused people in gasoline and burnt them to death, cut open pregnant women's wombs, shot men in front of their families, butchered children, kidnapped, tortured, pilfered, etc.- were portrayed as 'freedom fighters,' fighting against big, bad President Somoza. Thanks to the pro-communist Carter Administration and our pro-communist media, the Sandinistas conquered Nicaragua, set up a Cuba-like police state that jailed and killed thousands and stamped out almost every vestige of freedom, and helped spread terror to other parts of the world, including Angola and El Salvador. Another thing worth noting is the media's warm regard and praise for Mikhail Gorbachev, the KGB monster whose regime massacred over 500,000 Afghanis.
I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point.you made the point that the media was liberal before the 1980s when the rightwing subverted it

Dean revitalized the democractic party and he woulda defeated Bush if he was the nominee. What I wouldve done to stop 911 was to heed the specific warnings and prevented it

No, he wouldnt have defeated Bush. Dean would have caused a greater rift than that caused between Kerry and Bush. But Dean wouldnt have gotten any greater number of votes than Kerry did.

The idiotic simpleton wont launch nuclear weapons. The idiotic simpleton managed to be elected twice to President and govenor of the (3rd or 4th) largest state in the US. The nutcase lost in NH and blew a fuse. And only managed to win a primary in his own home state after he dropped out of running...

Oh..and what was Bush supposed to do? Teachers there even thanked Bush that day for remaining calm..honestly was he suppose to break down and panic? Would that have made you feel better? Or how about find the nearest telephone booth and become Superman? Bush was in a school. He wasnt near a command and control center. They had to fly him to a former SAC base to take up C&C operations. This entire country had no idea what was going on...neither did the President or the military until it was way to late. But hey..he didnt panic and scream,or jump up and leave without so much as a word..(which would have probably also drawn complaints on his ability to be easily scared..but hey..whatever right you just dont like him so never give him the benefit of the doubt.)

1) bush got a leg up from his family in texas, they have a bush beanie baby last i head, how do you know he wont launch nuclear weapon. ened i remind you of a project he wants? NUCLEAR BUNKER BUSTERS. NUCLEAR . BUNKER BUSTERS. jesus christ, why would you need NUCLEAR bunker busters? why dont we stick some anthrax in a warhead and launch it into falluja? and his election is because the majority of america is pretty damned stupid. thats obvious


2) everything is NOT black and white. there isnt just "panic" and "sit there" and he say there dumbfounded, he could've easily gotten up and gone and done soemthing WITHOUT panicing, hes the fucking president, he can make an excuse and get up and leave

3) and have you read anything concerning 9/11, how many fuck ups happened between everything? yeah what i thought

So ignorant... the American media is as corrupt as the government. I'm
happy that people read the news from other countries, it is important to
listen to opposition. There are several information boards created by the
people in those Arab countries (usually students) that can offer a shot for
shot detail of what is really going on there. Screw our media, it's just a
playground for politics.

So restricting the freedom of the media will stabilize a Democracy? :rolleyes:

No. It will create a dictatorship, a Liberal dictatorship.

you made the point that the media was liberal before the 1980s when the rightwing subverted it

The same liberals responsible for the things I mentioned- Blather, Hersh, and other scumbags- are still in the media manufacturing propaganda given the euphemism 'news.' They're the American equivalents of Joseph Goebbels.

The same liberals responsible for the things I mentioned- Blather, Hersh, and other scumbags- are still in the media manufacturing propaganda given the euphemism 'news.' They're the American equivalents of Joseph Goebbels.
only good news - john stuart

you made the point that the media was liberal before the 1980s when the rightwing subverted it

In the 1990s, the media glorified- deified, practically- Nelson Mandela, ignoring the atrocities he and the ANC committed against South Africa (mostly against blacks, I might add). Today, they make no mention of the ongoing murders of white farmers (mostly Afrikaaners). These were not people affiliated with the former National Party apartheid government; these were simply people going about their own business, living their lives without intervening in anyone else's affairs. Nor do they mention the hellhole South Africa is now; endemic crime, the world's highest rate of rape, rampant corruption and lawlessness, mass poverty, staggering unemployment rates, widespread racial violence, an AIDs epidemic that is growing explosively, etc.

only good news - john stuart

Someone- I think it's SuperPower07, though I'm not sure- has a great John Stuart quote in his/her signature.

In the 1990s, the media glorified- deified, practically- Nelson Mandela, ignoring the atrocities he and the ANC committed against South Africa (mostly against blacks, I might add). Today, they make no mention of the ongoing murders of white farmers (mostly Afrikaaners). These were not people affiliated with the former National Party apartheid government; these were simply people going about their own business, living their lives without intervening in anyone else's affairs. Nor do they mention the hellhole South Africa is now; endemic crime, the world's highest rate of rape, rampant corruption and lawlessness, mass poverty, staggering unemployment rates, widespread racial violence, an AIDs epidemic that is growing explosively, etc.
no one cares about those as they dont apply to the untied states thus they arnt newsworthy because americans dont give a fuck about stuff that doesnt affect the us directly. and aids epidemic is all over africa, to the point that the vatican isnt the only country experiencing an actual decline in population

The same liberals responsible for the things I mentioned- Blather, Hersh, and other scumbags- are still in the media manufacturing propaganda given the euphemism 'news.' They're the American equivalents of Joseph Goebbels.
does the rightwingers in the media do any better now and when they glorifyed the holocaust in latin america that Reagan sponsored?

does the rightwingers in the media do any better now and when they glorifyed the holocaust in latin america that Reagan sponsored?

No, of course not.

In the 1990s, the media glorified- deified, practically- Nelson Mandela, ignoring the atrocities he and the ANC committed against South Africa (mostly against blacks, I might add). Today, they make no mention of the ongoing murders of white farmers (mostly Afrikaaners). These were not people affiliated with the former National Party apartheid government; these were simply people going about their own business, living their lives without intervening in anyone else's affairs. Nor do they mention the hellhole South Africa is now; endemic crime, the world's highest rate of rape, rampant corruption and lawlessness, mass poverty, staggering unemployment rates, widespread racial violence, an AIDs epidemic that is growing explosively, etc.
I agree the media couldve spoken with a much louder voice in defense of the whites being oppressed in africa by dictators our CIA installed but Nelson Mandela didnt do any of those ANC things personally since he was a political prisoner for decades and alot of the ANC atrocitys were carried out by his wacko former wife

1) bush got a leg up from his family in texas, they have a bush beanie baby last i head, how do you know he wont launch nuclear weapon. ened i remind you of a project he wants? NUCLEAR BUNKER BUSTERS. NUCLEAR . BUNKER BUSTERS. jesus christ, why would you need NUCLEAR bunker busters? why dont we stick some anthrax in a warhead and launch it into falluja? and his election is because the majority of america is pretty damned stupid. thats obvious

As for his family in Texas, right and Kerry got a leg up from his wife, and Dean got a leg up from his backround. Thats how politics work. Dont blame connections because frankly he still got elected.And well you'd need a nuclear bunker buster to hit a target in say North Korea..possibly their nuclear weapons storage facility..but Bush isnt the first. The US already operates a nuclear bunker buster known as the B61-11 EPW. EPW standing for Earth Penetrating Weapon. The only difference is that the EPW cant penetrate concrete like a normal bunker buster but can demolish a tunnel outright. This weapon was developed and purchased in 1995 during the Clinton administration. The only difference is they took an existing nuclear weapon the B-61(out since the 60s) and retrofitted it to bury in the earth...Bush wants to develop something which could destroy a bunker and make sure it was destroyed.



2) everything is NOT black and white. there isnt just "panic" and "sit there" and he say there dumbfounded, he could've easily gotten up and gone and done soemthing WITHOUT panicing, hes the fucking president, he can make an excuse and get up and leave

Right and panic the children and their parents? His own advisors told him not to do anything. And you also fail to realize that even the teachers thanked the President for not just getting up and leaving. Bush leaving the school in a rush wouldnt have prevented anything. What if he had ran faster maybe the jet which hit the Pentagon would have missed? Or how about if he had gotten into the air sooner those idiots in the FAA would have asked the military to do something about the hijacked aircraft..keep and mind no one knew what aircraft were hijacked and what werent until 24-28 hours AFTER US airspace was clear..


3) and have you read anything concerning 9/11, how many fuck ups happened between everything? yeah what i thought

None of those fuckups could have been corrected by Bush at that time. He cant be everywhere at once. And once again I fall back on my comment and ask..What did you expect him to do? Pop into a phonebooth and out again dressed like superman? It dont work like that. 300+ firefighters would have still died due to faulty radios. FAA controllers would still have themselves been uncertain as to what to do with the hijacked aircraft....all those fuck ups took place WAY below the executive branch.

no one cares about those as they dont apply to the untied states thus they arnt newsworthy because americans dont give a fuck about stuff that doesnt affect the us directly. and aids epidemic is all over africa, to the point that the vatican isnt the only country experiencing an actual decline in population

Maybe if Americans gave a damn about other countries, then
the government wouldn't be creating wars all over the globe.
:sniper:

i thikn people are still missing the point, this is not about the media, its about how we show not become single source drones,
mmmmmaaaaaa cnn
oh my god its the attack of the cnn zombies!

read more and make your own ideas not just the ones that are force fed to us.
thats is what make that a good artical, even is if comes from an anti-amarican universty(sp?). and even if they are anti-amarican, is it a bad think we are aloud our own veiws right?

I figure if i listen both the right and left wing extremist media liars, ill be able to see both sides and at least get a general idea whats going on. Or ill just end up very very confused....

MKULTRA, please read George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" and get back to me when you understand what you're doing wrong.

MKULTRA, please read George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" and get back to me when you understand what you're doing wrong.
can you sum it up for me?

MKULTRA, please read George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" and get back to me when you understand what you're doing wrong.

Copiosa Scotia: please read George Orwell's "1984" and get back to me when you understand that a oppressive goverment must be stoppped in it's roots.

I have read this post with increasing interest as the Professor and Chess Squares slaughter everyone..... I guess you guys have been to too many NRA rallies to argue a decent point.

Oh, and how come you right wingers are so quick to defend CNN when all I every hear is Right wingers blaming the liberalist media every time they are embrassed because yet another thing went wrong in the world?

the useless corporate media looks to democracynow for all the breaking scandals

(stifling laughter)............... er, are we supposed to believe this?
( hides from democracynow agent) :headbang:

Copiosa Scotia: please read George Orwell's "1984" and get back to me when you understand that a oppressive goverment must be stoppped in it's roots.

I have read this post with increasing interest as the Professor and Chess Squares slaughter everyone..... I guess you guys have been to too many NRA rallies to argue a decent point.

Oh, and how come you right wingers are so quick to defend CNN when all I every hear is Right wingers blaming the liberalist media every time they are embrassed because yet another thing went wrong in the world?

You misunderstand me. My objection to MKULTRA has less to do with politics and more to do with his style of "argumentation," which mostly consists of empty political jargon.

As for your "oppressive government," hadn't you better bring that up with someone who actually voted for Bush?

You misunderstand me. My objection to MKULTRA has less to do with politics and more to do with his style of "argumentation," which mostly consists of empty political jargon.

As for your "oppressive government," hadn't you better bring that up with someone who actually voted for Bush?

Sorry, it sounded like a arguement over his politics. As for the essay, I thought you were scolding over the part about consideration on making a fair speech.

As for the other stuff, it's still true although it doesn't nessaceraly apply to you.

Sorry, it sounded like a arguement over his politics. As for the essay, I thought you were scolding over the part about consideration on making a fair speech.

As for the other stuff, it's still true although it doesn't nessaceraly apply to you.
1984 shouldve been re-titled to 2004

can you sum it up for me?

The point I'd like you to understand is that you can't just use phrases indiscriminately without regard for their meanings and expect to be taken seriously. It's come to the point where the word "fascism" has no meaning coming from you except for "something I don't like." Claims of a "corporate media bias" are only going to be viewed as attempts to duck the facts unless you can objectively prove that DemocracyNow.com is more reliable than CNN.

*nods head sadly*

The point I'd like you to understand is that you can't just use phrases indiscriminately without regard for their meanings and expect to be taken seriously. It's come to the point where the word "fascism" has no meaning coming from you except for "something I don't like." Claims of a "corporate media bias" are only going to be viewed as attempts to duck the facts unless you can objectively prove that DemocracyNow.com is more reliable than CNN.
democracynow is against the establishment that makes them more right

[QUOTE=X bomber]I have read this post with increasing interest as the Professor and Chess Squares slaughter everyone..... I guess you guys have been to too many NRA rallies to argue a decent point.[QUOTE]

I'm sorry...who's Chess Squares slaughtering again? Are you leftists all blind?

democracynow is against the establishment that makes them more right

Still empty. You haven't even demonstrated that the establishment is wrong.

As for his family in Texas, right and Kerry got a leg up from his wife, and Dean got a leg up from his backround.

what background? i dont recall kerry's wife being president or governor of some state or controlling all these corproations.[/quote]

.And well you'd need a nuclear bunker buster to hit a target in say North Korea..
your logic is nonexistent here. distance = need of nuclear warhead?

The US already operates a nuclear bunker buster known as the B61-11 EPW. EPW standing for Earth Penetrating Weapon. The only difference is that the EPW cant penetrate concrete like a normal bunker buster but can demolish a tunnel outright. This weapon was developed and purchased in 1995 during the Clinton administration. The only difference is they took an existing nuclear weapon the B-61(out since the 60s) and retrofitted it to bury in the earth...Bush wants to develop something which could destroy a bunker and make sure it was destroyed.
yeha becausem aking more nuclear arms is brilliant, maybe we should jsut fire off the ones we already have, sicne you know we have them and need to make more




Right and panic the children and their parents? His own advisors told him not to do anything. And you also fail to realize that even the teachers thanked the President for not just getting up and leaving. Bush leaving the school in a rush wouldnt have prevented anything. What if he had ran faster maybe the jet which hit the Pentagon would have missed? Or how about if he had gotten into the air sooner those idiots in the FAA would have asked the military to do something about the hijacked aircraft..keep and mind no one knew what aircraft were hijacked and what werent until 24-28 hours AFTER US airspace was clear..
EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE

oh bullshit, read the reports, there were so many fuck ups it was ridiculous, it shouldve been obvious they were hijacked and the order to shoot them down shouldve been given much earlier.



What did you expect him to do? Pop into a phonebooth and out again dressed like superman? It dont work like that. 300+ firefighters would have still died due to faulty radios. FAA controllers would still have themselves been uncertain as to what to do with the hijacked aircraft....all those fuck ups took place WAY below the executive branch.
i expected him to do more than sit there dumbfounded, he is the president not superman, but still teh fucking presdient.

and whats your point ,the shit shouldnt have happened, and the president shouldve done something earlier. the high ups wernt fucknig up any less than the lowballers

The same liberals responsible for the things I mentioned- Blather, Hersh, and other scumbags- are still in the media manufacturing propaganda given the euphemism 'news.' They're the American equivalents of Joseph Goebbels.

Gee, I thought the closest American equivalent to Goebbels was Karl Rove. If the liberals had a propagandists of that caliber I think the make up of the government would be a bit differnt right now.
(And my analogy at least keeps the propagandists listed on the same general side of the political spectrum.)

what background? i dont recall kerry's wife being president or governor of some state or controlling all these corproations. You've never heard of Heinz ketchup? There is a reason why her name is Teresa Heinz Kerry and it aint because she likes the stuff..but hey you know your stuff right :rolleyes:

your logic is nonexistent here. distance = need of nuclear warhead?
I'm not following your own logic.


yeha becausem aking more nuclear arms is brilliant, maybe we should jsut fire off the ones we already have, sicne you know we have them and need to make more

Right..uh huh...maybe we should lt the arms we have now fall into disrepair..most of the US arsenal is 20-30+ years old. Retiring those and building new ones doesnt mean we're going to use them. Whether you like it or not they're part of the US military and will be for the forseeable future.


EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE Except when it comes to nuclear weapons right Mr Lets Fire Off Everything? And yea I know you're being sarcastic and stuff but hey look at that you're seeing things in black and white!



oh bullshit, read the reports, there were so many fuck ups it was ridiculous, it shouldve been obvious they were hijacked and the order to shoot them down shouldve been given much earlier.

I did read the reports. I own a copy of the 9/11 commissions findings. Hindsight bias my friend. Unless you care to give sources and explain some executive level screw ups Bush committed which led to September 11th. The order to shoot down planes wouldnt have helped. The cold war ended 11 years before 2001. There were no fighter planes on deck weapons ready to launch. Even then the FAA didnt know what aircraft were hijacked and those they did know the AF scrambled to late to get.


i expected him to do more than sit there dumbfounded, he is the president not superman, but still teh fucking presdient.

and whats your point ,the shit shouldnt have happened, and the president shouldve done something earlier. the high ups wernt fucknig up any less than the lowballers

It shouldnt have happened your right. But it did. They planned it before Bush even got into office. They staked it out, they knew our weak spots and explioted them. Thats the thing, law enforcement has to be on the ball 100% and terrorists only need to be right 1% for something to happen.

You've never heard of Heinz ketchup? There is a reason why her name is Teresa Heinz Kerry and it aint because she likes the stuff..but hey you know your stuff right :rolleyes:
lets all go look up how much of a stock heinz actually owns in heinz ketchup

michael jackson owns alot of beatles songs bucko






Right..uh huh...maybe we should lt the arms we have now fall into disrepair..most of the US arsenal is 20-30+ years old. Retiring those and building new ones doesnt mean we're going to use them. Whether you like it or not they're part of the US military and will be for the forseeable future.
retire nuclear arms? i would love to see your proposal for this? maybe we should bury them like we doing everything else and pretend it goes away





It shouldnt have happened your right. But it did. They planned it before Bush even got into office. They staked it out, they knew our weak spots and explioted them. Thats the thing, law enforcement has to be on the ball 100% and terrorists only need to be right 1% for something to happen.
"bin Laden determined to attack in the US"

lets all go look up how much of a stock heinz actually owns in heinz ketchup
So she made her billions on her stunning wit and charm?


michael jackson owns alot of beatles songs bucko
You're losing it. Not only are your arguements incoherant but so are your red herrings.



retire nuclear arms? i would love to see your proposal for this? maybe we should bury them like we doing everything else and pretend it goes away
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w62.htm

Looks like the air force is already retiring some of the older stockpile..would you look at that..right again what are the odds on that huh? :rolleyes:



"bin Laden determined to attack in the US"

Bin Laden has been determined to attack the US for years..could you pick out a specific target for those attacks before 9/11? Because the CIA, NSA, and FBI couldnt. But if you could then you must have some extrodinary psychic ability which could be put to better use than being here chatting with us commoners :rolleyes:

Oh..and the military has retired plenty of nukes in the past..or do you think we still keep weapons from the 50s in active service?

First off the president did not need to get up and run away. He showed his moxy by staying with the kids. The American media tried to murder him for it. If we had shot down every plane that could have been hi-jacked what would the outrage been then? Those of you on the left would have screamed bloody murder for his(Pres. Bush) over reaction.Now you are upset that he did not react properly....
The American people send more money and aid to the world then all the other industrial nations combined.Check it out for your self...
As to media bias....Well let us see.IS Al Jezeera what one would consider open minded? No probably not.And the American media does have a bias but it does not run to the right or pro American. Could someone please show me the Right Wing media bias you all keep pointing to. Fox news is about the only one and it splits down the middle...So yes the American Media is killing democracy in the world.It supports ISLAMO-FASCISTS....

Lol @ Thread.

As long as the news don't fit your ideals, I guess it must be "RIGHT WING".

Get a break. If you don't like your tabloids, go read something else.

... Its easy to critize the US left and right its hard to offer any solutions to fix a matter.Just need to apply all the Antitrust laws...

Just need to apply all the Antitrust laws...

They've been trying to apply Anti-Trust laws since the mid 19th century...long long process...took nearly 80 years before the railroad robber barons were destroyed..and look where we got from that(Amtrak).

First off the president did not need to get up and run away. He showed his moxy by staying with the kids. The American media tried to murder him for it. If we had shot down every plane that could have been hi-jacked what would the outrage been then? Those of you on the left would have screamed bloody murder for his(Pres. Bush) over reaction.Now you are upset that he did not react properly....
The American people send more money and aid to the world then all the other industrial nations combined.Check it out for your self...
As to media bias....Well let us see.IS Al Jezeera what one would consider open minded? No probably not.And the American media does have a bias but it does not run to the right or pro American. Could someone please show me the Right Wing media bias you all keep pointing to. Fox news is about the only one and it splits down the middle...So yes the American Media is killing democracy in the world.It supports ISLAMO-FASCISTS....
Using schoolkids as human shields is Bushs way of showing his "moxy"? On 911 when America was being attacked Bush wasnt there for the American people

Human shields? Was there a gunfight in that school I'm unaware of? I don't understand that reference.

no we need to liberate the media from corporate facism and rightwing liars


And state-run media is where the honesty is? PLEASE

Using schoolkids as human shields is Bushs way of showing his "moxy"? On 911 when America was being attacked Bush wasnt there for the American people

You are absolutely clueless. But when your source is DemocracyNOW, nothing better can be expected. People who watch DemocracyNOW and complain about broadcast media in the US are pissed mainly because it isn't as overtly leftist as DN. It would be like right-wingers referring to their John Birch Society newsletter.

Human shields? Was there a gunfight in that school I'm unaware of? I don't understand that reference.
Because Bush isnt a true vet and because he exploited his connections to go AWOL during Veitnam Bush had no combat experience and he froze under fire instead of acten to defend the nation. Can you imagine a war hero like Kerry sitting in a classroom for 40 minutes while America is under direct attack?

And state-run media is where the honesty is? PLEASE
no I want people run media like democracynow

Because Bush isnt a true vet and because he exploited his connections to go AWOL during Veitnam Bush had no combat experience and he froze under fire instead of acten to defend the nation.

What? No, those two things have nothing to do with each other.Rudy Guiliani was able to do a hell of a job at Ground Zero with no combat experience.

Can you imagine a war hero like Kerry sitting in a classroom for 40 minutes while America is under direct attack?

7 minutes max. Kerry would have composed himself, waited for more info and had confidence that his people to handle the problem until he was in a position to take action. Like Bush did.








But afterwards, Kerry would have executed a bunch of blind Cambodian orphans.

no I want people run media like democracynow

The people are morons. I'm not saying rich people aren't. They are. Anytime more than one person gathers in one place at the same time, you have a group of morons.

DN has no acountability and no set of standards. As bad as you might think FOX is, you have people you can bitch at and do something about it.

no I want people run media like democracynow

DN is no more "people run" than is BMW. I know where NBC receives the money necessary to have news programming, but DN? No clue. Except Soros, and Mac, and Tides, and the Ford Foundation, etc. DN stops singing the tune of the left and that money evaporates.

What? No, those two things have nothing to do with each other.Rudy Guiliani was able to do a hell of a job at Ground Zero with no combat experience.



7 minutes max. Kerry would have composed himself, waited for more info and had confidence that his people to handle the problem until he was in a position to take action. Like Bush did.








But afterwards, Kerry would have executed a bunch of blind Cambodian orphans.
Rudy Giuliani did nothing even remotely heroic during 911--all he did was stand on dead bodies posing for cameras for political advantage while calling other people who wanted to see the wreckage "ghouls". Bushs response to 911 was to invade an innocent unarmed country that never did a thing to us and in the process get us stuck in a quagmire just like the war he refused to serve in at nam

The people are morons. I'm not saying rich people aren't. They are. Anytime more than one person gathers in one place at the same time, you have a group of morons.

DN has no acountability and no set of standards. As bad as you might think FOX is, you have people you can bitch at and do something about it.
any employee that bitches at foxnews gets the axe

Rudy Giuliani did nothing even remotely heroic during 911--all he did was stand on dead bodies posing for cameras for political advantage while calling other people who wanted to see the wreckage "ghouls". Bushs response to 911 was to invade an innocent unarmed country that never did a thing to us and in the process get us stuck in a quagmire just like the war he refused to serve in at nam

And tell me what would you have done on that day if you were in their position? I mean you are a god among men and all so tell me, would you have held the towers up with your incredible strength and put out the fires with your mind?

Rudy was at Ground Zero as soon as the rescue workers had a command center. He was almost burried when the first tower came down. He helped maintain law and order and was a pillar of strength to the people of NYC.

We have one leader who kept his composure and waited for more information in order to make a better desicion.

We have another who went to where he was needed immediatly and took control of the situation.

Both did a damn fine job. Your mind is just too narrow to see that.

And tell me what would you have done on that day if you were in their position? I mean you are a god among men and all so tell me, would you have held the towers up with your incredible strength and put out the fires with your mind?
No--I wouldve heeded the specific warnings about date time and method of attack and I wouldve acted to prevent it from happening at all because afterall I wouldnt have needed to allow something tragic to happen as a pretext to wage some dirty war in a helpless country for my own selfish agenda

Rudy was at Ground Zero as soon as the rescue workers had a command center. He was almost burried when the first tower came down. He helped maintain law and order and was a pillar of strength to the people of NYC.

We have one leader who kept his composure and waited for more information in order to make a better desicion.

We have another who went to where he was needed immediatly and took control of the situation.

Both did a damn fine job. Your mind is just too narrow to see that.
Rudy did nothing that wasnt outside of his job and that anyone else couldnt have done just as well. He just stood on dead bodies acten like a media whore--Rudy almost dies in the first tower cause the jackass wasted taxpayer money putting a bunker for himself on the 23rd floor of the WTC
Bush did nothing to reassure the nation at for hours and hours on 911 he was too busy evacuating Saudis from the country and Cheney went into deep hiding for six months straight

Rudy Guillani is a conservative basterd, that will rot in Hell.

Gee, I thought the closest American equivalent to Goebbels was Karl Rove. If the liberals had a propagandists of that caliber I think the make up of the government would be a bit differnt right now.
(And my analogy at least keeps the propagandists listed on the same general side of the political spectrum.)

Rove is no better. He's a neoconservative totalitarian puddle of pus.

Maybe someone else could have done Rudy's job, but noone else did. Rudy stepped up when we needed him.

And when the greatest city on earth suffers the biggest terrorist attack in history, the mayor is going to get a little camera time. And Rudy used it to help calm the city and get us through our darkest hour.

That bunker in the WTC never happened. He touted it, but it never happened. The command center that was burried was actually built on the spot.

And Rudy ain't that big a conservative. He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control.

the Saudi thing has been dealt with. Bush did his best to keep the country calm and did a hell of a job stepping up.

Six months straight? Hyperbole much?

Because Bush isnt a true vet and because he exploited his connections to go AWOL during Veitnam Bush had no combat experience and he froze under fire instead of acten to defend the nation. Can you imagine a war hero like Kerry sitting in a classroom for 40 minutes while America is under direct attack?

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!! Kerry, a war hero!? Yeah, sure...and I'm richer than Bill Gates! :D

No--I wouldve heeded the specific warnings about date time and method of attack and I wouldve acted to prevent it from happening at all because afterall I wouldnt have needed to allow something tragic to happen as a pretext to wage some dirty war in a helpless country for my own selfish agenda

And how would you have prevented it?

Rudy Guillani is a conservative basterd, that will rot in Hell.

Umm...no he isnt. Get your facts straight.

Rudy did nothing that wasnt outside of his job and that anyone else couldnt have done just as well. He just stood on dead bodies acten like a media whore--Rudy almost dies in the first tower cause the jackass wasted taxpayer money putting a bunker for himself on the 23rd floor of the WTC
Bush did nothing to reassure the nation at for hours and hours on 911 he was too busy evacuating Saudis from the country and Cheney went into deep hiding for six months straight

Your full of it...your using your own personal dislike and opinions and nothing you say can be backed by one single fact. Its a good way to argue because no one can disprove someones opinion..because you've shown yourself to be to horribly stubborn to accept someone elses opinion.

Rudy didnt act like a media whore. He kept calm, Bush kept calm, and he did make a speech to reassure the nation. What do you think happens in a situation like this? It takes this thing called time for stuff to happen. Honestly Roosevelt didnt speak to congress until December 8th does that mean he froze under pressure?

No--I wouldve heeded the specific warnings about date time and method of attack and I wouldve acted to prevent it from happening at all because afterall I wouldnt have needed to allow something tragic to happen as a pretext to wage some dirty war in a helpless country for my own selfish agenda

Specific warnings, specific warnings...that didnt exist. Unless you managed to connect the dots looking through the hundreds and hundreds of messages that the intel services have to wade through. But hey hindsight bias is a wonderful thing to have.

Maybe someone else could have done Rudy's job, but noone else did. Rudy stepped up when we needed him.

And when the greatest city on earth suffers the biggest terrorist attack in history, the mayor is going to get a little camera time. And Rudy used it to help calm the city and get us through our darkest hour.

That bunker in the WTC never happened. He touted it, but it never happened. The command center that was burried was actually built on the spot.

And Rudy ain't that big a conservative. He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control.

the Saudi thing has been dealt with. Bush did his best to keep the country calm and did a hell of a job stepping up.

Six months straight? Hyperbole much?Rudy was Mayor at the time he didnt step up he just did nothing more then his job posing for the cameras and exploiting a tragedy for his own political gain--he also grandstanded by ripping up a saudi check that couldve been used for the 911 familys. Hes a total jackass

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!! Kerry, a war hero!? Yeah, sure...and I'm richer than Bill Gates! :D
I think we can all agree compared to Bush hes a war hero

And how would you have prevented it?
by firstly acting on the tips about flight school trainees in Florida who were learning how to fly planes but not landing them-Bush had many warnings that something was goin on he willfully ignored them. America is a sitting duck for another terrorist attack with this total fool in charge

Umm...no he isnt. Get your facts straight.
Rudy G is a nanny state facist

Your full of it...your using your own personal dislike and opinions and nothing you say can be backed by one single fact. Its a good way to argue because no one can disprove someones opinion..because you've shown yourself to be to horribly stubborn to accept someone elses opinion.

Rudy didnt act like a media whore. He kept calm, Bush kept calm, and he did make a speech to reassure the nation. What do you think happens in a situation like this? It takes this thing called time for stuff to happen. Honestly Roosevelt didnt speak to congress until December 8th does that mean he froze under pressure?
Only that embarrassing fool Bush could sit in a classroom for 40 long minutes blinking like an idiot while America was under fire

Specific warnings, specific warnings...that didnt exist. Unless you managed to connect the dots looking through the hundreds and hundreds of messages that the intel services have to wade through. But hey hindsight bias is a wonderful thing to have.
the sad thing is Bush wanted and needed an attack like 911 so it wouldnt have mattered how many times he was warned anyway

And there it is, the out of left field jab at George W. Bush that has absolutely no logical bindings!

That's right, he NEEDED over 100,000 jobs to go splat. He NEEDED to spend the millions/billions of dollars it took to repair the locations. He NEEDED to spend the billions of dollars it would take to suit up American defenses. He NEEDED to immediately redeploy thousands of troops to Afghanistan. He NEEDED the deaths of several thousand people.

IT'S ALL SO LOGICAL!

And there it is, the out of left field jab at George W. Bush that has absolutely no logical bindings!

That's right, he NEEDED over 100,000 jobs to go splat. He NEEDED to spend the millions/billions of dollars it took to repair the locations. He NEEDED to spend the billions of dollars it would take to suit up American defenses. He NEEDED to immediately redeploy thousands of troops to Afghanistan. He NEEDED the deaths of several thousand people.

IT'S ALL SO LOGICAL!
yes it is--its all big business. Bush and his criminal administration are making a mint off the war in Iraq

Here's an idea:

Come to a logical conclusion and support it by facts. Show me how our being in Iraq makes Bush billions.

And I don't want to hear "WELL BECUZ HE'S FROM TEXAS AND HE DID STUFF WITH OIL, AND THERES OIL IN IRAQ SO HE MUST BE MAKING MONEY THERE!"

Come come, use some fucking logic.

Here's an idea:

Come to a logical conclusion and support it by facts. Show me how our being in Iraq makes Bush billions.

And I don't want to hear "WELL BECUZ HE'S FROM TEXAS AND HE DID STUFF WITH OIL, AND THERES OIL IN IRAQ SO HE MUST BE MAKING MONEY THERE!"

Come come, use some fucking logic.

They started planning the invasion of Iraq even before September 11th! The freaking PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to usher in naked Imperialism as far back as 1998 (pleading at their boy Clinton, 1.5 million dead) or 2000: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Wake up and smell the coffee, you gurgly little baby, Nazi goose-stepping queef, sucking your mashed beans directly from the CIA information office through your Fox news teat...

Some years back, William Colby, former Director of the CIA, stated, “the CIA owns everyone of significance in the major media.”

Anyone and any news-source outside of your neo-fascist Home(Father)land can see - IT'S ALL FOR EMPIRE! WAKE UP, HEIR STRUDEL, YOURE OF THE LAND OF THE BRAINDEAD!!

Again, nothing but name calling and illogic.

Come back when you actually get something credible, I'm sick of these fucking "If I say the word nazi enough maybe people will think it means something" dumbasses who throw around independent documents that have absolutely no relation to the United States government and then like to dance around this bonfire of ineptitude, spewing things that make absolutely no sense.

Yeah, we're an evil empire that's into totalitarianism, that's why we're having elections in January for who gets to run Iraq, that's why we're planning a withdrawl from Iraq, that's why the oil refineries are left to the Iraqi people, and that's why we're training Iraqis how to defend themselves.

I mean shit, the list goes on and on, or are you just going to respond with more j00 r Nazi rhetoric? If that's the case, save your fucking breath for something more useful.

Here's an idea:

Come to a logical conclusion and support it by facts. Show me how our being in Iraq makes Bush billions.

And I don't want to hear "WELL BECUZ HE'S FROM TEXAS AND HE DID STUFF WITH OIL, AND THERES OIL IN IRAQ SO HE MUST BE MAKING MONEY THERE!"

Come come, use some fucking logic.

Do I even need to point out the conflict of interest for Cheney in awarding a no-bid contract to Halliburton for all things Iraq-related? Here's logic: This administration has many, many ties to the companies they are allowing into Iraq. As shereholders, they stand to make millions off of the profits that the companies they contract with make in Iraq.
But you'll most likely dismiss me as another flapping liberal head who keeps mentioning "Halliburton" all the time. 'Cause Lord knows the Preznit is an honorable man, and would never try ta make money or increase power at the 'spense of the You-Nited States of Murrka. And when the Right latched on to a single issue, to the exclusion of all others (Monica! Monica! Monica! Stains on the dress! Cigars! Moral decency! Impeach, now!) they were absolutely right in doing so, but when their own administration has a scandal, bringing it up is un-American and treasonous.

Rudy G is a nanny state facist

Oh right..and not one supporting fact..uh huh..I'm gonna believe you on this. I only lived under his mayorship for eight years.

Oh the atrocity of the President using companies he knows and trusts!

Who the fuck cares if there are companies that stand to profit by being in Iraq? You know that's what corporations do right?

I mean seriously, if it wasn't Halliburton, it would be Extendo-Penis Arms and Munitions Inc. who went into Iraq or any number of companies, and you'd still be here reciting Michael Moore's logical fallacies about how evil it is to have people who make weapons/armor go into a war zone.

Though I like how you focus on issues that the democrats wanted people to focus on and not what the conservatives were actually looking at.

Do you think the Republicans gave a fuck whether or not Bill got head from a fat ugly intern? The fact of the matter was, he lied under oath.

That's a big no no, no matter how you slice it. No one wanted him impeached because of oral sex, people wanted him impeached because he lied under oath.

But that's okay because he's a democrat right?

And quite frankly, trying to break a long standing policy that's been in place for fifty(ish) years just so you can import Cuban cigars is completely ridiculous. Yeah, I am a little peeved that he's trying to validate someone who doesn't deserve validation, and disregard fifty years of international policy for the sake of pocketing some quick bucks in Cuban trade.

For those of you who don't want to have to weed through the constant insults and B.S., the jists of the post was:

Honestly, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, I'm making myself look like an idiot, and I'm conjuring up analogies that make no sense. I think that if I compare Bush to Hitler people will make a connection that otherwise isn't there, and I'll flaunt some anti-semitism by acting like the Israelies are evil.

For those of you who don't want to have to weed through the constant insults and B.S., the jists of the post was:

I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, couch potater, but that the Bush patriarch fueled Hitler and was convicted of perpetrating the Holocaust under the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1942.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

The current state of affairs in Fallujah, however, could be compared with Hitler's campaign against the Soviet Union, in which entire cities of non-combatants were massacred by small-arms fire, or with Bush and Hitler's common lineage, the Huns and Mongols who used the same tactics 3,000 years ago. Frankly, I'd rather be incinerated from the air like those in Dresden, Tokyo or Hiroshima (by democrats) or die in the agony of napalm by both republican and democratic administrations in '60s-'70s SouthEast Asia, than to have some freaking buck-toothed Bubba chase me down in my own village and put a bullet in my back, circa 2004 Fallujah. But that's just my own personal preference of genocidal death knell by the 20th-21st century imperial-fascist necrophiliacs...

STOP WATCHING TV - YOUR BRAIN HAS ROTTED SO SMALL, INTO THEIR NARROW DEBATE!!

Imperial...fascist...necrophylliacs. Do you know what any of these terms mean, or are you just using them because you think they sound derogatory?

For Christ's fucking sake, would you stop polluting your arguements with attacks fueled by these little adjectives and try to produce some examples?

You're drawing analogies to unlike situations, and have backed up your little claim that the Bush family supported Hitler with one incomplete website on a liberally biased domain. In other words, you're a self-proclaimed internet scholar, linking your www scholatics.

To compare Fallujah, a swift three day battle, to Stalingrad, a 180 day slug match that cost hundreds of thousands of lives of both sides, is simple idiocy.

there is evidence i read in a few newspapers that the american media, mainly television networks, are really highly influenced by one of the two main US parties. And therefore they channel what eather of the parties say is "news" and "important". Being in america for a month there are indications of this..

Imperial...fascist...necrophylliacs. Do you know what any of these terms mean, or are you just using them because you think they sound derogatory?

For Christ's fucking sake, would you stop polluting your arguements with attacks fueled by these little adjectives and try to produce some examples?

You're drawing analogies to unlike situations, and have backed up your little claim that the Bush family supported Hitler with one incomplete website on a liberally biased domain. In other words, you're a self-proclaimed internet scholar, linking your www scholatics.

To compare Fallujah, a swift three day battle, to Stalingrad, a 180 day slug match that cost hundreds of thousands of lives of both sides, is simple idiocy.

imperialism - foreign rape for powermonger profit
fascist - :fluffle: between corporations and state
necrophiliac - love of death

And all represent the world's governments, particularly the one headed by Trading with Hitler Bush but even hypocrite Chirac in Ivory Coast and Haiti...

You honestly don't believe that about Prescott? Get your mouth off of the corporate media's dong already, or at least suck on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

Fallujah only 3 days!!!! More like 500, or something, it goes back to at least April 2003:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/iraq-a30.shtml

And that's if you're only counting genocide by bullets. The UN sanctions go back to 1991... Either way, Stallingrad would only be a matter of scale, not tactic!

those links are interesting...

Oh right..and not one supporting fact..uh huh..I'm gonna believe you on this. I only lived under his mayorship for eight years.
I live in NY too and I seen the way he turned NYC into a police state with his so called "quality of life" bullshit and seizures of peoples private property

I live in NY too and I seen the way he turned NYC into a police state with his so called "quality of life" bullshit and seizures of peoples private property

Right because getting the sguiggy guys off the street, making sure anti-loittering laws are enforced, and driving the crime rate down to the lowest its been in 60 years makes NYC a police state.

As for seizures of peoples private property, are you talking about when the city started to take the cars of people caught DUI?

Right because getting the sguiggy guys off the street, making sure anti-loittering laws are enforced, and driving the crime rate down to the lowest its been in 60 years makes NYC a police state.

As for seizures of peoples private property, are you talking about when the city started to take the cars of people caught DUI?
Just like Mussolini before him Rudy G just transferred the crime rate from the private sector into the hands of the govt instead.And when the govt becomes the perpertrader your really fucked . Yeah Im talking about the DUI seizures and if Rudy was still in office he'd be expanding upon those seizures to have govt steal peoples cars for so-called "road rage" offenses next. Maybe you should study the concept of slippery slope incremental facism because people who think like you are a threat to a free society

Just like Mussolini before him Rudy G just transferred the crime rate from the private sector into the hands of the govt instead.And when the govt becomes the perpertrader your really fucked . Yeah Im talking about the DUI seizures and if Rudy was still in office he'd be expanding upon those seizures to have govt steal peoples cars for so-called "road rage" offenses next. Maybe you should study the concept of slippery slope incremental facism because people who think like you are a threat to a free society

I thought the mayor of NYC before Rudy was Dinkins not Mussolini..and before that Koch.

As for the crime rate, being transfered from the private sector...umm care to elaborate on this? Because as I see it, the NYPD isnt a privately funded force. Its a municipal police department. I dont follow you.

And oh please, the whole slippery slope issue is BS. Not everything is a cold decent into the darkness of fascism. Frankly who's to say that taking the cars of folks caught DWI'ed didnt save lives? Then again your whole slippery slope arguement doesnt hold much water. Otherwise Rudy G would have also been infavor of the smoking ban(he wasnt). But hey anything to strengthen the police departments ability to fight crime must be some form of fascism right?

I thought the mayor of NYC before Rudy was Dinkins not Mussolini..and before that Koch.

As for the crime rate, being transfered from the private sector...umm care to elaborate on this? Because as I see it, the NYPD isnt a privately funded force. Its a municipal police department. I dont follow you.

And oh please, the whole slippery slope issue is BS. Not everything is a cold decent into the darkness of fascism. Frankly who's to say that taking the cars of folks caught DWI'ed didnt save lives? Then again your whole slippery slope arguement doesnt hold much water. Otherwise Rudy G would have also been infavor of the smoking ban(he wasnt). But hey anything to strengthen the police departments ability to fight crime must be some form of fascism right?
no all Im saying is that it was a very dangerous precedent that Rudy set when he defended criminality within the police dept and praised cops who shot unarmed helpless people

no all Im saying is that it was a very dangerous precedent that Rudy set when he defended criminality within the police dept and praised cops who shot unarmed helpless people

BS he never praised them. But he didnt judge them until the facts were out. That was his choice.

Who he did praise was the department as a whole for lowering crime. Big difference.

BS he never praised them. But he didnt judge them until the facts were out. That was his choice.

Who he did praise was the department as a whole for lowering crime. Big difference.
Rudy gave the cops the unspoken message that they can commit any crime they wanted and he would back them up unconditionally. This encoraged an epidemic of police brutality incidencts and lawsuits under his reign

Rudy gave the cops the unspoken message that they can commit any crime they wanted and he would back them up unconditionally. This encoraged an epidemic of police brutality incidencts and lawsuits under his reign

And yet he disbanded the same Street Crimes Unit which had most of the complaints and had mutliple officers from the SCU brought up on disciplinary charges.