NationStates Jolt Archive

*Clearly Bush is the most dangerous Terrorist in power today.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh is reporting the Pentagon has secretly sent troops insider Iran to identify possible military targets. U.S. forces have reportedly entered into eastern Iran from Afghanistan. According to Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. Unlike secret CIA missions, the Pentagon can operate completely off the books without Congressional oversight.
democracynow.org

I am sure the Pentagon would have done a better job of hiding the information and not allowing some reporter in on everything if this were true.

I am sure the Pentagon would have done a better job of hiding the information and not allowing some reporter in on everything if this were true.

If that were only true. Seymour seems to get ahold of info, the goverment does not like to be known.....

Skap?: So how are black ops teams doing intel missions considered terrorists?

{If_"Democracy_Now"}
{Then_IGNORED!}

According to Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. Unlike secret CIA missions, the Pentagon can operate completely off the books without Congressional oversight.


See, you're emphasizing the wrong things. Although I disagree with the idea of another war, this time in Iran, I am resigned to the fact that it will probably happen. It does not bother me much.

However, it says in that article that the president has authorised the Pentagon to send commandos into as many as TEN nations! The implications of that concern me much more, depending which countries they are.

Actually i was reading on the BBC web site that Iran denies this is taking place. Iran writes it up to psychological warfare, which could be the case.

{If_"Democracy_Now"}
{Then_IGNORED!}
Lol, anybody else here understand JavaScript?

I am sure the Pentagon would have done a better job of hiding the information and not allowing some reporter in on everything if this were true.
Seymour Hersh isnt part of the Beast media so hes not just any reporter

It's clear to me that the author of this thread (as well as the New Yorker journalist) knows nothing about the way the special operations areas of the Directorate of Operations in the CIA or those of our military works.

We would not need to send in a "spec ops team" from the CIA, Army, or Navy to gather intel on any site in Iraq, or most of the other nations. We have multiples of other sources, not excluding the Mossad in Isreal who's HUMan INTelligence sources are better, more numerous, and more able to "blend in" than some of our own, who have an interest and could do it for us.

We're also spread a little thin right now and I doubt if there's any serious plan on OUR side to attack Iran in the near future. If anything, we'd assist logistically and monetarily in the multiples of other countries who have as much or more to gain in dismantling their nuclear capabilities.

As far as Bush being a "terrorist", or us committing acts of terrorism in "as many as 10 nations", that also is a load of malarky. Some Liberal-ass reporter is trying to win an award from his peers on his "remarkably insightful" ability to BS and for jumping on the "bash Bush" bandwagon and stirring up the pot. And you're falling right into it.

Unless you're 12 years old, I suggest you stop believing everything you read, especially in a rag as liberally biased as the New Yorker (or from most of the media today, for that matter). If you are 12, then I hope Santa Claus was good to you last year.

If that were only true. Seymour seems to get ahold of info, the goverment does not like to be known.....

Skap?: So how are black ops teams doing intel missions considered terrorists?
if they use tactics to provoke war

{If_"Democracy_Now"}
{Then_IGNORED!}
Democracynow is just the portal

I love people that call Bush a terrorist...

I love people that call Bush a terrorist...
:fluffle: (tho I dont think Bush is a terrorist)

if they use tactics to provoke war

Hiting military targets vs civilian seperates the two.....

*Clearly Bush is the most dangerous Terrorist in power today.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh is reporting the Pentagon has secretly sent troops insider Iran to identify possible military targets. U.S. forces have reportedly entered into eastern Iran from Afghanistan. According to Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. Unlike secret CIA missions, the Pentagon can operate completely off the books without Congressional oversight.
democracynow.org
( major eyeroll ) This is the very reason that I have decided to no longer respond to your posts. Democracynow.org has repeatedly been discredited as a reputable source. Besides, US Special Forces teams have been into and out of so many nations that you would need an atlas to figure them all out. I know for a fact that there are SF teams "boots on the ground" in Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, and many others even as we speak.

Seymour Hersh isnt part of the Beast media so hes not just any reporter

He wouldn't happen to live in a fairy dream world, would he?

Or have a delusional psychosis?

hehe

IE, HOW DO WE CONFIRM THAT HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH?

Unless you're 12 years old, I suggest you stop believing everything you read, especially in a rag as liberally biased as the New Yorker (or from most of the media today, for that matter).
YES!!! We need unbiased sources like the ones below. Cause those tell the truth!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://www.georgewbush.com/
http://compassionate.conservative.com/

( major eyeroll ) This is the very reason that I have decided to no longer respond to your posts. Democracynow.org has repeatedly been discredited as a reputable source. Besides, US Special Forces teams have been into and out of so many nations that you would need an atlas to figure them all out. I know for a fact that there are SF teams "boots on the ground" in Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, and many others even as we speak.
And an atlas wouldn't even help all that much, as some of the nations don't even have the same name.

yeah, lol, Iran will become known as The Free People of Former Bloodistan

hehe

in other news, the Iraqi people are expected to vote YES on the referendum to rename Iraq "Oilistan"

:fluffle: (tho I dont think Bush is a terrorist)
he is a suttle terrorist

Hiting military targets vs civilian seperates the two.....
Bush kills us all equally

YES!!! We need unbiased sources like the ones below. Cause those tell the truth!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://www.georgewbush.com/
http://compassionate.conservative.com/

LOL, I'll give you that there are biased reporting groups on both the Republican and the wrong sides.

The media just seems to be mostly the wrong side.

Eutrusca, I see you are in NC and posting about SF. Ever spend any time at Bragg by chance?

L.A.

Most news sources (with the major exception being Fox news) are liberally-biased sources. Some, like democracynow, are so liberal that they aren't even worth going to.

( major eyeroll ) This is the very reason that I have decided to no longer respond to your posts. Democracynow.org has repeatedly been discredited as a reputable source. Besides, US Special Forces teams have been into and out of so many nations that you would need an atlas to figure them all out. I know for a fact that there are SF teams "boots on the ground" in Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, and many others even as we speak.
then your just as credable as democracynow.org cause theyre agreeing with you :)

He wouldn't happen to live in a fairy dream world, would he?

Or have a delusional psychosis?

hehe

IE, HOW DO WE CONFIRM THAT HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH?
by which side hes on and the fact that it was a spec ops

LOL, I'll give you that there are biased reporting groups on both the Republican and the wrong sides.

The media just seems to be mostly the wrong side.

Eutrusca, I see you are in NC and posting about SF. Ever spend any time at Bragg by chance?

L.A.
the media is on the side of rightwing liars and the corporate entity

LOL, I'll give you that there are biased reporting groups on both the Republican and the wrong sides.

The media just seems to be mostly the wrong side.

Eutrusca, I see you are in NC and posting about SF. Ever spend any time at Bragg by chance?

L.A.
I don't know if he has, but according to his sig he's a Vietnam vet and therefore pretty educated on this sort of topic.

Most news sources (with the major exception being Fox news) are liberally-biased sources. Some, like democracynow, are so liberal that they aren't even worth going to.
False--most media is rightwing bias and Foxnews is the looney tunes right

*Clearly Bush is the most dangerous Terrorist in power today.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh is reporting the Pentagon has secretly sent troops insider Iran to identify possible military targets. U.S. forces have reportedly entered into eastern Iran from Afghanistan. According to Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. Unlike secret CIA missions, the Pentagon can operate completely off the books without Congressional oversight.
democracynow.org

Hersh has about as much credibility as a puddle of cat vomit.

False--most media is rightwing bias

Care to back that up?

Sorry about that. It's the end of the day and my brain has already left the building. hehe

Care to back that up?

Nobody can prove it either way. It's entirely subjective, there is no definite scale by which you can measure how liberal/conservative something is, other than your own values and opinions.

Hersh has about as much credibility as a puddle of cat vomit.
why do you say that? Hershs reporting was able to cure the Veitnam war

Care to back that up?
I do--I repeate myself endlessly on this issue

Nobody can prove it either way. It's entirely subjective, there is no definite scale by which you can measure how liberal/conservative something is, other than your own values and opinions.
no its been objectively proven that the media is rightwing by the consistent type of slant given to stories and what gets reported and what doesnt

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/17/214212.shtml

no its been objectively proven that the media is rightwing by the consistent type of slant given to stories and what gets reported and what doesnt

Objectively proven? Source please.

then your just as credable as democracynow.org cause theyre agreeing with you :)
You're seriously in need of a course in logic. These are NOT "terrorist squads." These are the some of the same people with whom I use to work. I know what they do, and it has NOTHING to do with "terrorism." Democracynow.org has virtually no credibility as a news source because of their extreme leftist agenda and the slant they place on virtually every article they post.

no its been objectively proven that the media is rightwing by the consistent type of slant given to stories and what gets reported and what doesnt

But is it possible to prove that it is more right wing than American society itself? Because personally I think that the measure of how conservative/liberal the media is should be based on the surrounding culture.


Not sure how much sense I made there...

First, inst this topic on black ops in the mideast? If so then why are we tlaking about media bias. It seems every where i go there isnt a person who cant stop talking about media bias and instead focus on the issues. Guess what there is bias. Fox slants right, CNN slants left. The New York TImes slants left, The wallStreet JOurnal slants right. Who cares? You all seem to find the bias s o you are not dupes. Good for you.

Second. Isnt the point of black ops to go into countries and cause a ruckus. Arent they made to take out specific military trargets? Im just wonderingg. If so, then why is everyone making a fuss that they are doing their job.

Objectively proven? Source please.
FAIR.ORG and others
(I was gonna say Democracynow.org but I wanted to appear fair)

But is it possible to prove that it is more right wing than American society itself? Because personally I think that the measure of how conservative/liberal the media is should be based on the surrounding culture.


Not sure how much sense I made there...
its more rightwing then NY

First, inst this topic on black ops in the mideast? If so then why are we tlaking about media bias. It seems every where i go there isnt a person who cant stop talking about media bias and instead focus on the issues. Guess what there is bias. Fox slants right, CNN slants left. The New York TImes slants left, The wallStreet JOurnal slants right. Who cares? You all seem to find the bias s o you are not dupes. Good for you.

Second. Isnt the point of black ops to go into countries and cause a ruckus. Arent they made to take out specific military trargets? Im just wonderingg. If so, then why is everyone making a fuss that they are doing their job.
everyones pisst cause the media is biased only in ONE slant--to the right. CNN is nowhere near being left

FAIR.ORG and others
(I was gonna say Democracynow.org but I wanted to appear fair)

I don't see any articles on Fair.org criticizing articles supporting Democrats, only articles bashing articles supporting Republicans.

Apparently FAIR's motto is "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting...unless the reporting is Liberal"

I don't see any articles on Fair.org criticizing articles supporting Democrats, only articles bashing articles supporting Republicans.

Apparently FAIR's motto is "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting...unless the reporting is Liberal"
thats because they cant find any examples of liberal reporting anywhere in the beast media

thats because they cant find any examples of liberal reporting anywhere in the beast media

:eek: You just lost any ounce of credibility you once had with me. I'm done here.

:eek: You just lost any ounce of credibility you once had with me. I'm done here.
your brainwashed by the Govt

It's clear to me that the author of this thread (as well as the New Yorker journalist) knows nothing about the way the special operations areas of the Directorate of Operations in the CIA or those of our military works.

True.

We would not need to send in a "spec ops team" from the CIA, Army, or Navy to gather intel on any site in Iraq, or most of the other nations. We have multiples of other sources, not excluding the Mossad in Isreal who's HUMan INTelligence sources are better, more numerous, and more able to "blend in" than some of our own, who have an interest and could do it for us.

RE the Mossad, there is intel sharing, but there's always a question of disinformation or selective sharing, so there is need to have our own sources.
Also, there are many other SOF operations that might be going on in Iran besides intel gathering. Counter-terror ops spring to mind, for example.

We're also spread a little thin right now and I doubt if there's any serious plan on OUR side to attack Iran in the near future. If anything, we'd assist logistically and monetarily in the multiples of other countries who have as much or more to gain in dismantling their nuclear capabilities.

As far as Bush being a "terrorist", or us committing acts of terrorism in "as many as 10 nations", that also is a load of malarky. Some Liberal-ass reporter is trying to win an award from his peers on his "remarkably insightful" ability to BS and for jumping on the "bash Bush" bandwagon and stirring up the pot. And you're falling right into it.

Exactly so.

Isnt the point of black ops to go into countries and cause a ruckus.

Generally not. In fact, it is usually the case that SOFs want to do things with the minimum of ruckus.

Arent they made to take out specific military trargets?

Depends on the nature of the force. Rangers, SAS, SEALs and the like are primarily raiding units (hitting strategic targets quickly). LRSUs and Force Recon type units are for reconnaissance. SFs are for guerrilla operations, training operations, winning hearts and minds, and lots of other stuff. There are quite a few other types of SOF units as well, such as Civil Affairs and PSYOP units, military police SWAT teams, Combat Search and Rescue, and so on. They all have different missions.


Im just wonderingg.

;)

If so, then why is everyone making a fuss that they are doing their job.

As Eutrusca pointed out, that's what they're doing. Certain people are objecting because they don't understand what's going on, largely because of ignorance.

they have been on the ground for years in that part of the world, you think that the pentagon would let any reporter find this out? most black op missions are already completed by the time the media finds out, right or left wing media.

they have been on the ground for years in that part of the world, you think that the pentagon would let any reporter find this out? most black op missions are already completed by the time the media finds out, right or left wing media.

True.

they have been on the ground for years in that part of the world, you think that the pentagon would let any reporter find this out? most black op missions are already completed by the time the media finds out, right or left wing media.

Not only that, but the vast majority of SOF ops are not "found out" by the media. Quite a few wouldn't be reported if they were, as they can actually be very boring to the reader. A typical mission might be something like this: count how many trucks drive up and down a stretch of road in X amount of time. It could be vital data, but it's not something that the papers are going to want to waste space on too often. A lot of the time the "exciting" ops are the result of screw ups or accidents. See Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero for a good example.

Not only that, but the vast majority of SOF ops are not "found out" by the media. Quite a few wouldn't be reported if they were, as they can actually be very boring to the reader. A typical mission might be something like this: count how many trucks drive up and down a stretch of road in X amount of time. It could be vital data, but it's not something that the papers are going to want to waste space on too often. A lot of the time the "exciting" ops are the result of screw ups or accidents. See Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero for a good example.

Also true, at least in part.

The media (both on the liberal and right-wing sides, though I pretty much believe all to be liberal) love the military catch-phrases like "Spec Ops" and "Black ops" and "minestrone soup" :D . They call SF troopers "green berets" because it sounds cool (a green beret is a hat), they don't use/know the real term for Delta, because "Delta Force" sounds cooler, and they think that every incident that goes on anywhere in the world will sell more if it has one of those phrases attached to it. Sadly, they're right.

Daistallia has a point about Mossad, but when it comes to Iran I feel their willingness to share would probably grow a bit. Isreal did recently buy a load of bunker-busters from us, and I doubt they're looking to use them on houses in Gaza. If anything, I don't think our military will be used (as I said) in anything more than an advisory capacity and would not be the least bit surprised if one of those bunker-busters ended up in the main rod housing unit of Iran's nuclear plants once the domes are finished. They'll call it another Chernobyl and quietly sink into oblivion until they come up with the duckets to start another set of facilities.

As much as they buck up to us, they don't want us there anymore than North Korea does. The saber rattling is old, and will continue off and on until they feel they've gotten the attention and appeasement they need and then they'll quiet down again.

As to why I think the media is all liberal: when sarin gas (a WMD) was found in Iraq, it made page 16 news and was dismissed as "too small to count". When brand new MOPP suits were discovered along with NBC containers, it was overlooked. The fact that a whole slew of jets that we didn't even know they HAD were discovered buried in the Iraq desert and wasn't even IN the news. The fact that they say there's "no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda", when the majority of the troops/civies getting kidnapped in Iraq are snagged and beheaded by AL QAEDA terrorists. Lastly, people are calling my Commander In Chief a terrorist because he went into Iraq without the UN, when Clinton did the same thing in Bosnia without congress or UN permission but he was justified... even his wife and the traitor Kerry voted for this war based on the SAME INTELLIGENCE that Bush was!!! This includes everything I've enumerated here.

Iraq listed in a 100K page document all the NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons they had BEFORE the war started, but they couldn't show any proof that all of it (or even MOST of it) had been destroyed.

My hands are tired, and most of the leftists here aren't going to believe me anyway. I'm going to the gym and the range.

L.A.