Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the media hurting the war?
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 145 (421437)
09-12-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tal
09-12-2007 10:22 AM


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.
Tal,
Although I like the new sig I want you to know I agree with the old one. Actually the media is a bit worse than that quote lets on.
Here's an article from Time where the most knowledgeable on this board get there info on Iraq.
Page not found | TIME
“For Captain Shonnel Makwakwa, it was a rare assignment "outside the wire": a chance to break the monotony of life on the base and get out onto the streets of Baghdad. But it didn't take long to realize that this was no routine mission. Minutes after Makwakwa's humvee pulled out of Camp Liberty last December, bad news crackled over the radio: a supply convoy of six 18-wheel trucks was ambushed at Checkpoint 50, a freeway cloverleaf that is a notorious shooting alley for insurgents. Makwakwa, a bright, fit New Orleans native, handles medical logistics for the U.S. 10th Mountain Division--the kind of deskbound job often assigned to women G.I.s. Now she found herself wearing a first-aid kit on her belt, gripping an M-4 rifle and crawling on her stomach as enemy fire rained down. "I could hear the rounds pinging all around me," she says. "It was surreal." The scene was horrific. Flies were everywhere, and so was blood. "I'd dealt with people dying in the hospital, but it was nothing like this," she says. Makwakwa and another soldier kicked in the bullet-shattered windshield of the lead vehicle, but the driver was already dead. The driver of the second vehicle was screaming in agony from his wounds; he later died. Makwakwa and the patrol were able to save three other wounded drivers, but the memories of Checkpoint 50 are hard to erase--a constant reminder that while the military officially bars women from combat, the insurgency makes no such distinctions. "In Iraq, female soldiers are in combat," she says. "We're out there."
WOW can you imagine? Women being shot at, bullets pinging everywhere, blood all over, people dead.
What is the most important thing about this story?
It's totally made up. It never happened, well the part about being on a routine mission out of Camp Liberty is true.
How do I know this? Well the reporter for Time and the Capt. were in my son's humvee. They left Camp Liberty and delivered medical supplies to an Iraqi hospital nearby.Notice how the true humanitarian but uneventful story wasn't even mentioned. My son remembers it well because on returning he went to see his 1st Sgt to tell him this Capt. had ordered him into the back seat where he would not have been in his proper position to give instructions to his driver, gunner and dismounts if something did happen. She got her butt reamed for it.
So Tal, it's not just the negative reporting, stuff is also just made up, to fit the media's agenda.
Good luck and thanks for your service.
Martin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tal, posted 09-12-2007 10:22 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 09-12-2007 6:21 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-12-2007 8:14 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 12:12 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 114 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:11 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 145 (421439)
09-12-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by petrophysics1
09-12-2007 6:14 PM


quote:
Here's an article from Time where the most knowledgeable on this board get there info on Iraq.
Really?
I don't remember a lot of Time magazine quotes.
Who of the "most knowledgeable on this board" use quotes from Time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by petrophysics1, posted 09-12-2007 6:14 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 145 (421475)
09-12-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by petrophysics1
09-12-2007 6:14 PM


What's your point?
Time was part of the media that was helping to beat Bush's war drum; they were publishing Bush's allegations that Saddam Hussein had WMD and posed an imminent threat and had links to Al Qaeda. So we already know that Time publishes made up stories. Are you telling us anything new?
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by petrophysics1, posted 09-12-2007 6:14 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 145 (421514)
09-13-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by petrophysics1
09-12-2007 6:14 PM


Is it possible that your son doesn't tell you about the trouble he gets into, because he understands how a parent might worry?
Or that this happened on a different trip? Surely Shonnel Makwakwa has ridden in more than one Humvee in her life.
There's a number of considerably more likely situations than "lying reporters". What interest do the reporters at time have in fabricating bad stories from Iraq? There's more than enough true ones to print.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by petrophysics1, posted 09-12-2007 6:14 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 110 of 145 (421548)
09-13-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tal
09-12-2007 10:16 AM


Tal responds to me:
quote:
quote:
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
Mustard Gas Wiki
You're missing the point: That wasn't an example of weaponized mustard gas. That was an unidentified picture. We don't even have any indication as to what caused the blisters?
quote:
quote:
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?
Yes.
Then where is your evidence? So far, you haven't been able to produce a single shred of proof. All of your attempts to provide a smoking gun have been shown to be either falsehoods (the Polish claim) or wildly overblown (the sarin and mustard gas).
So the burden of proof is still on you. Every single agency that has looked into this has determined that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were discarded, degraded items from the 1980s that would be no worse than what you'd find under your sink:
“In terms of toxicity, sir,” Kay told Weldon at one point, “I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988.”
But where are the WMDs? Where is the evidence that anything capable of living up to the moniker of a "weapon of mass destruction"? Nobody is saying that Hussein had never been in the possession of WMDs. After all WE WERE THE ONES WHO GAVE THEM TO HIM! Donald Rumsfeld was the one who brokered the deal. But as your own source points out, they were from the 1980s. The idea that mustard gas from the 80s presents any real threat today is to be disingenuous at best.
Would I want to be attacked with 20-year-old mustard gas? No. But I wouldn't want to be shot, either.
Neither is a "weapon of mass destruction." You need to show us an example of a "weapon of mass destruction."
Be specific. An unidentified picture is not sufficient.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tal, posted 09-12-2007 10:16 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 111 of 145 (421549)
09-13-2007 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Phat
09-12-2007 10:32 AM


Re: Is Iran The Real Problem?
This is a thread unto itself. I'll start one.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Phat, posted 09-12-2007 10:32 AM Phat has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 112 of 145 (421550)
09-13-2007 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tal
09-12-2007 10:22 AM


Tal responds to me:
quote:
quote:
I should point out that not a single terrorist plot has been countered using the new liberty-destroying legislation that has been enacted.
That you know of.
(*chuckle*)
Right. Have you not been paying attention? When asked directly to provide evidence of anybody caught using these new powers, the administration did not say, "We cannot tell you for that would compromise the effectiveness of the program," as they usually do. Instead, they said they didn't have any.
Given that this administration crows about how they've landed "the #2 Al Qaeda agent" every few months and claim everybody vaguely related to a terrorist activity was about to bring about nuclear armageddon across the entire country, why is it they can't provide a single example of anybody ever caught using their new powers? In fact, everybody who gets caught they say they managed to nab using "old-fashioned policework."
quote:
The public only hears about the occassional spectacular attacks we have stopped.
Excuse me? What "spectacular attack"? There hasn't been any "spectacular attack" to stop. That's the entire point: The administration hypes the hell out of everybody they investigate as "the next 9/11" and then we find out that no, it was just a bunch of mooks trying to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a hair dryer.
Why on earth do you think that Padilla went from "deploying a dirty bomb" to "applied to join a terrorist camp"? He was supposed to be the pride and joy of the war on terror and it turns out he was just an angry young man.
quote:
You may think we stop a few a year, but we have stopped thousands upon thousands.
No, we haven't. That would require that every single day, multiple attacks have been stopped. Surely somebody would have noticed. Surely some of them would have succeeded. You're not seriously suggesting that our ability to stop terrorist attacks is practically perfect, are you?
quote:
No, I can't prove that last statement to you
Then why did you make it? The burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the claim.
We know that we were able to stop terrorist plots before the Patriot Act. Therefore, it is your reponsibility to show that the Patriot Act has increased that ability. If you cannot do so, if every single example of a "foiled plot" can be shown to have been foiled through older, non-Patriot Act methodologies, then there is no evidence that the Patriot Act actually accomplishes anything and given that it directly violates basic Constitutional principles, it needs to be repealed.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tal, posted 09-12-2007 10:22 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 7:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 113 of 145 (421565)
09-13-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Rrhain
09-13-2007 6:00 AM


Excuse me? What "spectacular attack"? There hasn't been any "spectacular attack" to stop.
No, we haven't. That would require that every single day, multiple attacks have been stopped. *bold added by Tal*
You say things like this with such absolute certainty. You are convinved you are right, but won't admit to yourself that you don't know everything regarding this subject. See the part I put in bold? Now you are getting the idea.
Attack 1
Attack 2
The List of 10
Theat's just 12 examples that aren't classified.
Why on earth do you think that Padilla went from "deploying a dirty bomb" to "applied to join a terrorist camp"? He was supposed to be the pride and joy of the war on terror and it turns out he was just an angry young man.
He was found guilty of all charged and should be recieving his sentence in early December. Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Persons in a Foreign Country, Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists, and Material Support for Terrorists.
We know that we were able to stop terrorist plots before the Patriot Act.
September 11th.
Your ability to ignore the obvious is staggering.
Edited by Tal, : grammer
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 6:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:14 AM Tal has replied
 Message 124 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2007 4:30 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2007 3:22 AM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 114 of 145 (421571)
09-13-2007 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by petrophysics1
09-12-2007 6:14 PM


Hi Martin, I was in 1-32 INF once upon a time up at 10th Mountain land. And yes, the media sometimes simply makes stuff up. We all remember the "Bush was AWOL" crap from C...BS. I just so happenned to be the POC for Army (worldwide) for DFR packets(Dropped From Rolls, the packet that makes you a Deserter and the source documentation used to input no-bond felony warrants into NCIC)and noone ever contacted my office (via Ft Knox PAO) to check the facts.
On a side note, never run a sitting President's SSN on NCIC.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by petrophysics1, posted 09-12-2007 6:14 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:18 AM Tal has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 115 of 145 (421574)
09-13-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tal
09-13-2007 7:46 AM


Tal responds to me:
quote:
Attack 1
That wasn't us. That was the Germans. As you may recall, the point is whether or not the new police powers granted by the US government has resulted in the foiling of any plots.
quote:
Attack 2
That wasn't us. That was the Brits. As you may recall, the point is whether or not the new police powers granted by the US government has resulted in the foiling of any plots.
quote:
The List of 10
And none of these are of any real significance. Notice that Padilla is on the list. The feds couldn't even bring any real charges against him. He was originally claimed to have been plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," but there wasn't any evidence to suggest that at all. After years in custody as an "enemy combatant" and no trial date, the feds shuffled him around from jurisdiction to jurisdiction while they tried to build a case against him...only succeeding in showing that he applied for a terrorist training camp.
Ergo, this wasn't a foiled plot.
The first two have since been retracted. They were not actually what they were claimed to be. And all the rest involved other countries or were of such insignificance or were so early in their planning stages that to call them "foiled plots" is to strain credulity:
The Washington Post writes:
The president made it "sound like well-hatched plans," said a former CIA official involved in counterterrorism during that period. "I don't think they fall into that category."
The request was for you to show how the new police powers granted by the US government has resulted in the foiling of any plots.
You haven't done so. Just like all your other claims, they vanish under inspection.
quote:
He was found guilty of all charged and should be recieving his sentence in early December. Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Persons in a Foreign Country, Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists, and Material Support for Terrorists.
Ahem. What were the charges? He wasn't found guilty of actually doing anything. Nor was he found guilty of plotting against Americans.
Padilla was originally arrested and charged with planning to set off "dirty bombs." Those charges were dropped and were never brought up in his trial.
Ergo, no terrorist plot was foiled.
Burden of proof is still on you: What has the Patriot Act actually allowed us to do that we couldn't do before?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 7:46 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:32 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 130 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 3:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 116 of 145 (421575)
09-13-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Tal
09-13-2007 8:11 AM


Tal writes:
quote:
We all remember the "Bush was AWOL" crap from C...BS.
Ahem. It has yet to be shown that the document were forgeries. The worst that can be said is that the document came from someone who had a personal stake in the matter and he won't say where he got them from. That certainly makes them questionable, but that doesn't make them fakes.
Besides, you seem to think that the entire report rested upon that single piece of paper. You are ignoring all the other evidence showing that Bush failed to report for duty such as his medical records.
quote:
noone ever contacted my office (via Ft Knox PAO) to check the facts.
Could be that you weren't the one to call.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:11 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:23 AM Rrhain has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 117 of 145 (421576)
09-13-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rrhain
09-13-2007 8:18 AM


Wow. You are actually going to try to argue this one? Start another thread with your evidence and I'll be happy to annihilate it. Let's try to keep this thread on topic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:32 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 2:23 PM Tal has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 118 of 145 (421583)
09-13-2007 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rrhain
09-13-2007 8:14 AM


Ahem. What were the charges? He wasn't found guilty of actually doing anything. Nor was he found guilty of plotting against Americans.
Are you really that dumb? The charges are listed in the text YOU quoted. He was found guilty on all charged 16 August, 2007. His conspiracy to murder charge was dismissed 17 August 2006, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling reinstated a charge of conspiracy to "murder, kidnap, and maim" in January of 2007.
As to the rest of your drivel, it is clear that you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. I am done with you until you add something meaningful to thread.
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:14 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:36 AM Tal has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 145 (421584)
09-13-2007 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tal
09-13-2007 8:23 AM


Tal responds to me:
quote:
Start another thread with your evidence and I'll be happy to annihilate it.
Nice try, but shifting the burden of proof is a logical error. You're the one making the claim, therefore you are the one who needs to justify it.
Where is your evidence that anything the Bush Administration has said regarding this war from the reasons we went to the justifications for changes to our laws has any connection to reality?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:23 AM Tal has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 145 (421585)
09-13-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tal
09-13-2007 8:32 AM


Tal responds to me:
quote:
Are you really that dumb?
Strange. That's what I was going to ask you.
quote:
The charges are listed in the text YOU quoted.
I know. You apparently didn't read them. What was Padilla originally claimed to have been involved in? He was supposed to have been on the way to detonating dirty bombs here in the US.
But there wasn't any evidence of such. Instead, they had to get him on a bunch of conspiracy charges, none of which had any evidence that he was actually doing anything. They had his name on an application and some phone calls that the feds claimed were in code.
That isn't a plot.
Now prove your claim: What has the Patriot Act actually accomplished? What has been done using its authority?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:32 AM Tal has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024