Is the media hurting the war?

What WMDs? you've posted a couple of pictures with no indication of sources - that a picture of an arm. Where it was taken, what it shows and when - who knows? Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Deleted - didn't advance the "debate" (such as there is).Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

You think I've never had a blister before? Christ, you can get the same kind of injury from mishandling Meloidae beetles, does that mean we should go in and invade the Midwest?For a blistering agent to be degraded that far, it has to have sat in its containers for a very long time. Since, say, 1991?

Your name was removed.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

So, where were those photos taken, Tal?Are those dead deciduous tree leaves on the ground on other side of that deck?

Loop holes work both ways.

I started to read this thread, but then I realized, no-one here is really qualified to answer that question, unless we have someone here who is both an expert on military operations, and an expert on our rights as far as the media goes.There are two points to consider:
1 That our enemies read the papers, and watch CNN.
2 That we as a people need to know what is going on, since we don't trust our own government, and we need to police ourselves as a people.Where does the happy medium lie?

I'm confused. Exactly what part of dealmaking with gangsters, assassination attempts, spying on US citizens and illegal wiretaps do you consider "Loopholes"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So? What do you think the problem is? Do you think that CNN is broadcasting reports like "US forces believe that Osama bin Laden is located at 123 4th St. in Baghdad and will raid that house at 8:00 tonight?"The problem about "media hurting the war" is that the media sometimes (not often, but sometimes) publishes information that contradict the government's lies about why the war is taking place, and perhaps even reminding viewers and readers that innocent people as well as American service personel are being killed by in a foreign invasion that occurred for no justified reason.- And this is how the media is "hurting the war". It hurts the war when it presents information that contradicts the government's propaganda efforts. The people, by being informed and then exercising their rights as voters, may decide to end the war. An informed electorate not only hurts war efforts, it hurts all government policies that are meant to exploit the people for the benefit of the few.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Tal responds to me...I think...he didn't use the appropriate "Reply" button when posting.Um...those aren't evidence of WMDs. A blistering agent is not a WMD.Unpleasant? Sure. But so are bullets and we don't call those "WMD"s.Now, given that both the US and the UK have made official statements that there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, are you still claiming that there were when we invaded?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

There are two points to consider:
1 That our enemies read the papers, and watch CNN.

---

Yeah, right. The local population of Anbar province all sit up late and watch Glen Beck.That said, let's assume that the terrorists aren't stupid. Then that belies the claim that "We have to fight them over there so that we don't fight them over here." After all, they know where "here" is. And if they weren't stupid, they'd attack now because all of our defensive equipment is over there. If you're the weak one, the only way you'll cause any damage is if you hit the enemy in a vulnerable spot. By engaging in a foolish, endless occupation in Iraq, we have made the US weaker and much more vulnerable.

quote:

---

2 That we as a people need to know what is going on, since we don't trust our own government, and we need to police ourselves as a people.

​

Where does the happy medium lie?

---

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.The problem with being the good guy is that it means you let them make the first move. Shall we give up everything it means to be an American simply because some people are scared?I should point out that not a single terrorist plot has been countered using the new liberty-destroying legislation that has been enacted. Instead, dozens were countered before they were enacted using tried-and-true methods like policework and investigation. If those methods had been actively employed, there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened.So if the sacrifices of liberty that we have put into place haven't actually made us safer but instead have made us less safe, shouldn't we undo what we did? Shouldn't we stop saying those who are insisting upon exercising the liberties we used to have are "traitors" and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?Shouldn't we start listening to the people who were right and stop listening to the people who were wrong?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Mustard Gas WikiHighlights: Yes.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

That you know of. The public only hears about the occassional spectacular attacks we have stopped. You may think we stop a few a year, but we have stopped thousands upon thousands. No, I can't prove that last statement to you, but your statement seems to be a bit on the iron-clad side of opinion.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

Tal, now that I have you on the other end of the horn, I thought I would ask you:Do you believe that Iran eventually will become the real challenge and potential problem for our way of life?A guy on the radio was saying that within Islam itself, there are perhaps a million people with fundamentalist global ambitions.Are they patiently awaiting the day when our nation bankrupts itself into impotence? Will it be necessary to fight these people?Are there any alternatives for the forseeable future?

Surely, if the rollback of civil liberties could be justified by all the thousands of stopped terror attacks you just made up, the administration would be saying so? Wouldn't they be publishing details of these stopped attacks in order to defend the policies? Instead of just saying "oh, it stops terror attacks, trust us."If you believe that, I have a magic rock that keeps leopards away. Don't believe me? Well, you don't see any leopards around here, do you?