see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article2842.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....s/CHALIB~1.gif
Printable View
I'm sorry...I fail to see your point.Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@12 April 2003 - 12:43
see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article2842.htm
Are you saying we only picked out people who were against Saddam, to be there?
Or are you saying we only allowed 150 people into the square?
I see quite a crowd to the upper left in that picture.
What are they doing?
How long had the statue been down when this picture was taken.
Pulling that statue down could have been quite dangerous if we had just allowed anyone into the square.
Can you please elaborate.
Maybe if we could speak to the photographer who took this picture. He could surely shed some light on what we are seeing there.
Thanks though.
Its a good long distance shot of the scene.
Peace
i also don't see your point.
if they HAD allowed all iraqis in, it would be chaos and a suicide bomber's paridise.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see this anti-U.S. spin questioned.
It occured to me that I said "upper left" when I meant upper right.
BTW...What are cockles?
Do you think that its *possible* that people from the pentagon, state department, DoD, various armed forces, etc, were actively involved in the preparation of the event? Do you doubt that in a world of live-via-satellite and internet reporting, and where public opinion both domestically and abroad has such enormous consequences, that the occupying force wouldn't consider putting on a little show -- which just happened to be across the street from a hotel that housed hundreds of foreign journalists -- in order to lend some credibility to OEF?
I get the feeling that you perhaps haven't studied history or political science, or state use of mass media during armed conflict.
If i may, I offer the following bit of wisdom: there's a fine line between patriotic and naive.
Ok...I get it.Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@12 April 2003 - 17:18
Do you think that its *possible* that people from the pentagon, state department, DoD, various armed forces, etc, were actively involved in the preparation of the event? Do you doubt that in a world of live-via-satellite and internet reporting, and where public opinion both domestically and abroad has such enormous consequences, that the occupying force wouldn't consider putting on a little show -- which just happened to be across the street from a hotel that housed hundreds of foreign journalists -- in order to lend some credibility to OEF?
I get the feeling that you perhaps haven't studied history or political science, or state use of mass media during armed conflict.
If i may, I offer the following bit of wisdom: there's a fine line between patriotic and naive.
You're saying that the US did what any other country would do.
Ok...I'm still confused...
If you know that its something that any country would do, then you must also know that most everyone knows that its something any country would do in that situation.
If you don't know that, then I'm afraid YOU are the one who is being naive.
But thats all speculation on your part anyway.
None of those picture have any connection to a specific moment in time, and only one of them have a connection to a specific place.
I could put any number of captions to them that would be just as valid based on the limited information the pictures alone give.
Agreed though, it is possible that your supposition is correct.
It is also possible that the picture showing the crowd around the statue was taken after a great number of the citizens left.
And the lower right picture of Chalabi could have been taken in Paris for all I know.
Peace
Manipulated or not. It happened on live TV.
I fail to see much in manipulation. The statue has been there, the people are from there. The camera man is just there. The army helped the people do what they wanted.
The news media clearly says that this statue event is a psycological tactic that will have an impact on the people's view that Sadam's regime is over. So yes, this is manipulation in that respect.
I think they should have manipulated it more, for the safety of the people. There were clearly dozens of "OSHA violations" at that scene, if it were a regular construction jobsite in the USA.
You spelled 'OSHA' wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Spindulik@13 April 2003 - 00:09
I think they should have manipulated it more, for the safety of the people. There were clearly dozens of "OHSA violations" at that scene, if it were a regular construction jobsite in the USA.
You're right otherwise of course.
Not that it'll matter to myfiles3000. He knows the truth of what happened.
He just wants to confuse the issue with everyone else.
I think he has Alqaeda ties...Yeah...Thats the ticket.
Him and a few other Alqaeda sympathizers on here.
Trying to manipulate what we see on TV to mean something entirely different.
Hmmm...I probably shouldn't do that. He has just as much right to missrepresent the information as the next guy. What IS the law on that?
Peace
You spelled 'OSHA' wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+13 April 2003 - 12:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 13 April 2003 - 12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spindulik@13 April 2003 - 00:09
I think they should have manipulated it more, for the safety of the people. There were clearly dozens of "OHSA violations" at that scene, if it were a regular construction jobsite in the USA.
You're right otherwise of course.
Not that it'll matter to myfiles3000. He knows the truth of what happened.
He just wants to confuse the issue with everyone else.
I think he has Alqaeda ties...Yeah...Thats the ticket.
Him and a few other Alqaeda sympathizers on here.
Trying to manipulate what we see on TV to mean something entirely different.
Hmmm...I probably shouldn't do that. He has just as much right to missrepresent the information as the next guy. What IS the law on that?
Peace [/b][/quote]
Erm.....Al-Queada were the US allies in this event, so i doubt it.
Or at least I assume so, as all their training grounds are in the area controlled by, and the people that hid them from Saddam Hussain were, the Kurdish Militia.
The Kurdish Militia that were fighting with the USA in Northern Iraq....
Like I said before elsewhere:
Anyone remember that great US sitcom "SOAP"?
I agree though, you have to question the report that started the whole thread. Just as you have to question anything you read anywhere these days.
Don't have time to respond now, but you might be interested in this Australian ABC piece on Fox and Al-Jazeera war coverage.
Fox v. Al Jazeera
NE1, just a matter of time before the specious link between Al Qaida and Iraq was made. what are you thinking?
Dircet Links of that nature are against the board rules i think....Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 18:28
Don't have time to respond now, but you might be interested in this Australian ABC piece on Fox and Al-Jazeera war coverage.
Fox v. Al Jazeera
NE1, just a matter of time before the specious link between Al Qaida and Iraq was made. what are you thinking?
That would be interesting, considering that one of the many reasons we wanted to take down Saddam was due to his possible funding of Alqaeda operations.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 April 2003 - 12:09
Erm.....Al-Queada were the US allies in this event, so i doubt it.
Or at least I assume so, as all their training grounds are in the area controlled by, and the people that hid them from Saddam Hussain were, the Kurdish Militia.
The Kurdish Militia that were fighting with the USA in Northern Iraq....
Like I said before elsewhere:
Anyone remember that great US sitcom "SOAP"?
Alqaeda, as it is known today, was never on the US side.
They have their own agenda which is mainly about terrorism for profit.
That we once had ties with them is not to say they were the same organization that they have become over time.
And...That we once had ties with them is not an excuse for siding with them today.
Their motives have changed. All their noble pursuits to protect the Muslim community have become destorted
by their need to maintain power.
Without checks and balances, they have become the proverbial Beast.
Thats what happens when the people have no control over their king. In the case of Al Qaeda, Ben Ladin.
In the case of Iraq, Saddam.
If it ever was time to change the rules in the Middle East, its time now.
Peace
NE1, i don't see your point. First of all, saddam was a state dictator, imposing rule top-down within a sovereign state. OBL is the leader of a grass-roots terrorist organization of voluntary membership. I don't see any substantial similarity between the two forms of leadership or organization. However, I agree with you that checks and balances are needed, and that's why Shrub's rejection of UN protocol is so deplored by the majority of world opinion. as for not being being able to control your king, well, consider the following quote:
"The irony of a man who lost an election and won a court case "installing" democracy in the Arab world is not lost on many. Not least because if we had anything like representative democracies in the west he would be in no position to do so."
Gary Younge
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian
.........
Their motives have changed. All their noble pursuits to protect the Muslim community have become destorted
by their need to maintain power.
Without checks and balances, they have become the proverbial Beast.
Thats what happens when the people have no control over their king. In the case of Al Qaeda, Ben Ladin.
In the case of Iraq, Saddam.
Yes, it was SO thoughtful of Saddam to place the statue thusly. He always claimed to have great foresight.Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@12 April 2003 - 17:18
Do you think that its *possible* that people from the pentagon, state department, DoD, various armed forces, etc, were actively involved in the preparation of the event? Do you doubt that in a world of live-via-satellite and internet reporting, and where public opinion both domestically and abroad has such enormous consequences, that the occupying force wouldn't consider putting on a little show -- which just happened to be across the street from a hotel that housed hundreds of foreign journalists -- in order to lend some credibility to OEF?
I get the feeling that you perhaps haven't studied history or political science, or state use of mass media during armed conflict.
If i may, I offer the following bit of wisdom: there's a fine line between patriotic and naive.
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community, but please try to follow the discussion more carefully. this thread concerns possible US activities to win the battle for public opinion, so I'm not sure how you misconstrued the discussion as suggesting that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Fardus Square incident. But to clarify: no, I'm not suggesting that the enemy of the US is lending a hand in the US propaganda campaign. I'm happy to clarify offline if you like.
I considered resisting this urge, but to my own delight, I have failed. How could YOU fail to recognize excellent American satire, as practiced by a decorated practitioner of English (that would be me)?Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 20:01
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community, but please try to follow the discussion more carefully. this thread concerns possible US activities to win the battle for public opinion, so I'm not sure how you misconstrued the discussion as suggesting that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Fardus Square incident. But to clarify: no, I'm not suggesting that the enemy of the US is lending a hand in the US propaganda campaign. I'm happy to clarify offline if you like.
I will elaborate:
Many in this admittedly International forum attribute none but the worst intentions to the U.S. (again, that would be me), including the utilization of spin and propaganda at every opportunity, while also portraying us as crude and lacking in subtlety: incapable of nuance.
Since you are absolutely correct in this conclusion, I, as a proud defender of all things American (including our lack of subtlety), was merely assaying an opening wherein a bit of irony might be utilized to further our perception as louts.
I did this by pointing out (watch for it now) how Saddam, in his all-encompassing wisdom and prescience saw his way clear to erect said statue in such convenient proximity to short-term lodging that, in the case of war, would surely be peopled by a much larger than usual group of international journalists!
Spiro Agnew, a spectacularly corrupt American of years past, had, in any case, a degree of eloquence -he used a phrase once I feel I must reproduce here, as it describes you to a tee: You, sir, are a "nattering nabob of negativism".
Yes, Yes-PERFECT!!!
I think Latin is actually his first language, but I would urge caution in any case...Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@14 April 2003 - 02:01
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community
I considered resisting this urge, but to my own delight, I have failed. How could YOU fail to recognize excellent American satire, as practiced by a decorated practitioner of English (that would be me)?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+13 April 2003 - 20:40--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 April 2003 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 20:01
j2k4, i realize English might not be your first language as this is an international community, but please try to follow the discussion more carefully. this thread concerns possible US activities to win the battle for public opinion, so I'm not sure how you misconstrued the discussion as suggesting that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Fardus Square incident. But to clarify: no, I'm not suggesting that the enemy of the US is lending a hand in the US propaganda campaign. I'm happy to clarify offline if you like.
I will elaborate:
Many in this admittedly International forum attribute none but the worst intentions to the U.S. (again, that would be me), including the utilization of spin and propaganda at every opportunity, while also portraying us as crude and lacking in subtlety: incapable of nuance.
Since you are absolutely correct in this conclusion, I, as a proud defender of all things American (including our lack of subtlety), was merely assaying an opening wherein a bit of irony might be utilized to further our perception as louts.
I did this by pointing out (watch for it now) how Saddam, in his all-encompassing wisdom and prescience saw his way clear to erect said statue in such convenient proximity to short-term lodging that, in the case of war, would surely be peopled by a much larger than usual group of international journalists!
Spiro Agnew, a spectacularly corrupt American of years past, had, in any case, a degree of eloquence -he used a phrase once I feel I must reproduce here, as it describes you to a tee: You, sir, are a "nattering nabob of negativism".
Yes, Yes-PERFECT!!! [/b][/quote]
J2k4,
You're RIGHT!!!
Why didn't I see that before??
Myfiles...I know you're a bit slow, so I'll translate J2k4's amazing insight into my best attempt atMiddle Eastern English for your benefit.
Saddam put statue in square next to hotel where news peoples stay, so when regime fall down, go boom, US must to bringing that statue down as all other statues were, and then you can make big deal over how american propaganda machine is making big deal over small thing.
Is that true?
Saddam's thing is small?
No wonder he had doubles.
Hmmm...Lets see now...4 doubles...How many wives again?
Peace
Has anyone noticed that myfiles3000 seems to have a problem quoting text?
Must be me.
Peace
:rolleyes:
I noticed; it's not just you. :PQuote:
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@13 April 2003 - 21:55
Has anyone noticed that myfiles3000 seems to have a problem quoting text?
Must be me.
Peace
:rolleyes:
I wonder where myfiles3000 went?
I hope he/she doesn't think ill of me, or that I am an "ugly" American.
I hope he/she doesn't feel I was mis-leading him/her?
Well? Was I? :huh:
NE1, yes i have a problem quoting -- and yet, somehow, i brave the world with chin raised high, determined to have my say, even if people judge me on the format of my postings, not the content. The good lord gives me the strenth to go on, one day at a time. I'm still waiting for an explanation on the AQ/Iraq theme your were foisting earlier today, but so far you've only managed to parakeet j2k4's postings, criticize me for not having aesthetically pleasing posts, and mimick, in fashion most juvenile, "Middle Eastern English."
j2k4: my reputation as a gentleman would be unfounded if I weren't to concede that I may have taken your comments at face value, and thereby underestimated your intellect. But I hardly think you know me well enough to describe me to a tee. I'm not that easy.
Agnew? you mean Dick's lapdog? didn't he used to talk about an unelected elite that ran American media counter to majority views? hmmmmm.....
I'm sorry if i came on a little strong, I have a tendency to intimidate people. I'll tone it down a little if it would make you feel more comfortable.
Intimidate? Nah-Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@14 April 2003 - 06:16
I'm sorry if i came on a little strong, I have a tendency to intimidate people. I'll tone it down a little if it would make you feel more comfortable.
I wasn't criticizing you, but you have to admit, 'twas YOU who were guilty of not reading adequately.
I do take issue with your characterization of the statue-toppling event; the number of "attendees" is always subject to the focal settings of the camera and also to the intent of it's operator. The picture you chose seemed to rather fortuitously fit your pre-supposition of propaganda.
In any case, neither the picture nor your supposition proves anything as they don't rise to the level of documentation. I feel your post was merely an attempt to provoke, and provoke it did; you just didn't get the reaction you wanted, at least from me.
Personally, I think the money we gave those actors was very well-spent. :lol:
P.S. I have to admit-I WAS making fun of you, just a bit, anyway. Sorry-
P.P.S. I am a gentleman, too. I wasn't trying to describe you, only your posts-I apologize for the mis-understanding there.
You're right about Spiro, of course, but he shore cud tawk prittee.
If it was staged as a publicity stunt I thought it was very badly orchestrated, what with the draping the face with the stars and stripes which was hastily taken down, then the fact that it took ages to pull it down, and even then it more slid down rather than crashed down.
It would have been a much more effective demonstration (and much better telly) if they'd have blown the crap out of it with a bazooka... :P
The first bloke who ran up and smacked him over the head with his shoe though, that was absolute class! :D :D
It was, at that; you must never forget, though, Barbarossa, only ONE "Iraqi" was doing the hitting-it would probably be advisable to review the tape AND the hitter's technique so as to ascertain, and thereby certify, the truth of his "Iraqiness". I've heard he may have been Israeli. Honest. I read a "link"... :ph34r: :ph34r:Quote:
Originally posted by barbarossa@14 April 2003 - 09:44
The first bloke who ran up and smacked him over the head with his shoe though, that was absolute class! :D :D
Documentation, you say? Like, the falsified British intelligence report Powell referred to in making his case against Saddam in front of the whole world? The documentation purporting to be secret British intelligence, that pasted entire excerpts verbatim without citing the source from a 10 year old grad paper? Or perhaps you prefer the type of documentation referred to by the Pentagon, alleging Iraqi purchase of 'yellow cake' from a certain african nation, which turned out to be such an embarrassingly inept forgery that it was rejected by the UN atomic agency as soon as they saw it.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@14 April 2003 - 14:47
In any case, neither the picture nor your supposition proves anything as they don't rise to the level of documentation.
As for the flag draped on the statue, one curious fact: it's was flying at the pentagon on 9/11. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is conveniently overlooked. They're all brown anyway, all arabs, close enough.
(SIGH)
Once again, now.
The pointlessness of absolute reliance on ANY "news source", or "link", should be apparent to EVERYBODY.
Anybody who doesn't use their own DISCRETION when gleaning info from WHEREVER is bound to leap to the wrong conclusion.
Those who engage in "conspiracy" theory are also engaging in useless activity. To proffer a "picture" (especially one with no exact chronological context) as indicative of ANYTHING is MIS-LEADING and of no greater import than the most egregious propaganda.
This is the activity of the judgementally impaired.
myfiles3000-If you must insist that you were right in your original post, then I must insist that you are lost to reason.
To post in such a way indicates a fundamental dishonesty.
Now its my time to sigh in exasperation.
SIGH.
the "conspiracy theory" label, always an effortless way to discredit someone.
All i'm saying is this: since the rise of mass media, semiotics plays a huge role in the popular understanding of world events. every war has its images, moments, that come to define the conflict, and are loaded with biases that aren't properly understood. ne1GotZardoz, in saying that everyone knows that everyone uses propaganda and I would be naive to think otherwise, doesn't realize the contradiction of his statement -- like advertising, it wouldn't be used if it didn't work, and propaganda can't work if everyone is fully conscious of what's going on.
There's been a lot of talk in the past week comparing Fardus Square with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the statue footage has been heavily relied on as implicit justification of the invasion of Iraq, particularly as the WMD have still yet to be found -- "well, even if there aren't any WMD--and we're not saying there's not--we're still justified because look at all these people that hated saddam."
But the two events have nothing in common, the fall of the wall was a true popular uprising, a true *reflection* of events (media as mirror). The photo (from Reuters) paints a different picture: not a huge crowd of people, not a spontaneous, organic expression of the masses, but a carefully managed PR event with as much fidelity with the truth as the average ad. A creation.
I never counselled 'absolute reliance' on anything. the photo adds a different perspective to the story than is normally told, and is worthy of consideration. that is has no "exact chrono context", well, what were you expecting, a time stamp? big ben in the background? to denounce the photo in such stark, binary terms seems unreasonable to me. This is after all, war.
j2k4, if you're going to suggest i'm "fundamentally dishonest, and lost to reason," you're going to have to do better than that. Please, explain it to me like i'm a 3 year old, what makes my original post so objectionable? Where i come from, the free exchange of information meeting a certain threshold of credibility -- certainly the case with this photo -- is encouraged, not denounced. Marketplace of ideas, etc.
Hmmm Interesting debate.
It seems to me that if one must read between the lines regarding
the media; one must also do the same regarding this post and other
sources of information. Skepticism goes both ways.
Anyway I do find it plausible that this one event might be at least
partly orchestrated by the U.S. (Perhaps not in its entirety)
There is no way to tell how many, if any individuals performing the ritual
were members of Mr. Ahmed Chalabi. Also the pictures of Chalabi shown
do not specificaly place him at the scene. Maybe other pictures may show more
clearly his surroundings. It does not matter anyway.
That particular incident is not the only one shown where Iraqis demonstrate hapiness
and gratitude towards coalition forces.
Amongst the many media displays, I particularly remember an old man beating a poster
of Saddam using his shoe and talking about how Saddam killed his sons.
I do find it possible to believe that the US may have something to do with some theatrics.
I certainly do not find it possible to believe that the US has orchestrated every single display of
gratitude and happines seen from the Iraqi people.
If this is true; I think Hollywood just found a wonderful source of talent!
agreed. that would be your run of the mill paranoid schizophrenic off the meds and covered in foil. I haven't been like that in months.Quote:
Originally posted by ClubDiggler@15 April 2003 - 00:15
I certainly do not find it possible to believe that the US has orchestrated every single display of
gratitude and happines seen from the Iraqi people.
ps - i just want the person who's been trying to hack into my computer since i posted anti-american ideas on this board to know that I'm on to you. And I'm currently in discussion with a certain foreign power that's very interested in your activities, and who you work for, and all I'm going to say is this time you went too far.
Yeah, I think the US has a monopoly on propaganda and we ALL misjudged Saddam.
I mean, in his video release he was just casually strolling down the streets of Baghdad, giving a shout out to his homies, while black smoke billowed in the backround. People spontaneously surrounded him, declaring their love and he proceded to KISS A FRIGGIN' BABY!.
That was not staged, that was real! Got any aerial photos of that session. Hell, drop back 20 feet and you would see the cue cards, see the man releasing the doves of freedom from their cages, to fly over his head.
I heard that when the stautue of Saddam fell and cracked in half, candy poured out of the center as Saddam is so sweet on the inside. This was editted out by Western conspirators.
I actually analyized the footage from the statue scene. IF you use the right filter, you can see that the burly Iraqi pounding on the base with a sledgehammer, is no more than Donald Rumsfeld in a specially designed robot.
Open you eyes America, Iraq loves Saddam, and we are no where, we are snake!
In fact, we do this ALL for Israel. Have you guys be catching all this anti-semitism (sp) from DiogenesUK and Fallenknight308 (who provides a nice link). I love it, what twisted paranoids they are.
hobbes,
That was some awesome stuff you wrote.
In all seriousness, people really like to write some great conspiracy stories. Those
are the best. Hey, really you should pass some of that material to Clancey or Demille.
I think they are running out of fresh ideas lately. B)
It was indeed an "effortless" application of the "conspiracy" label; to waste time blasting a hole in the wall when the front door is left wide open runs counter to my inclination toward economy.Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@14 April 2003 - 13:30
Now its my time to sigh in exasperation.
SIGH.
the "conspiracy theory" label, always an effortless way to discredit someone.
All i'm saying is this: since the rise of mass media, semiotics plays a huge role in the popular understanding of world events. every war has its images, moments, that come to define the conflict, and are loaded with biases that aren't properly understood. ne1GotZardoz, in saying that everyone knows that everyone uses propaganda and I would be naive to think otherwise, doesn't realize the contradiction of his statement -- like advertising, it wouldn't be used if it didn't work, and propaganda can't work if everyone is fully conscious of what's going on.
There's been a lot of talk in the past week comparing Fardus Square with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the statue footage has been heavily relied on as implicit justification of the invasion of Iraq, particularly as the WMD have still yet to be found -- "well, even if there aren't any WMD--and we're not saying there's not--we're still justified because look at all these people that hated saddam."
But the two events have nothing in common, the fall of the wall was a true popular uprising, a true *reflection* of events (media as mirror). The photo (from Reuters) paints a different picture: not a huge crowd of people, not a spontaneous, organic expression of the masses, but a carefully managed PR event with as much fidelity with the truth as the average ad. A creation.
I never counselled 'absolute reliance' on anything. the photo adds a different perspective to the story than is normally told, and is worthy of consideration. that is has no "exact chrono context", well, what were you expecting, a time stamp? big ben in the background? to denounce the photo in such stark, binary terms seems unreasonable to me. This is after all, war.
j2k4, if you're going to suggest i'm "fundamentally dishonest, and lost to reason," you're going to have to do better than that. Please, explain it to me like i'm a 3 year old, what makes my original post so objectionable? Where i come from, the free exchange of information meeting a certain threshold of credibility -- certainly the case with this photo -- is encouraged, not denounced. Marketplace of ideas, etc.
Semiotics or not, Mass media having risen (or not), the secret of deciphering the images and written/oral presentations of ANY media is to be screened or vetted judiciously by the consumer's (presumably) well-developed mental (read: NOT EMOTIONAL) faculties. This should be considered the minimum requirement for even watching T.V., reading newspapers or any periodicals. Regrettably, this is an impossible standard to observe. I will state, however, that to pronounce upon improperly digested material in an "International" forum is, to put it plainly, irresponsible.
To attempt to escape the derision you have invited by saying "All I'm saying is......." and then trying to sidestep the obvious intent of your original post by obfuscation is nothing more than changing oars so as to row out of the other side of the boat.
How in the hell can a media consumer be "fully conscious of what's going on" in a fully propagandized world? I submit he needs something he cannot get by bits and pieces, he MUST consume as much of the media pie as he can, and one picture doesn't fill the bill. Beyond the requisite investment of time, experience is also required. Your picture was pretty much a stand-alone item, presented by itself-you didn't give the potential consumers (members of the forum) any side dishes, just a lousy entree.
You are correct in stating you "never counselled 'absolute reliance' ". The problem was, you "counselled" NOTHING. Just threw the picture out there and almost dared a different conclusion than the one YOU reached.
Let me tell you what I gathered by looking at your picture (I waited for you to point this out yourself, but you didn't):
The tank has just begun to approach the statue; this is a clear indication that whatever crowd was in attendance when the statue finally fell, it had not assembled yet-at the point the picture was taken, nothing had occurred that would prompt a crowd to gather: why would a crowd gather to watch frustrated Iraqis throw shoes and sundry trash at a statue? THAT was happening all over Baghdad!
I watched the entire event on T.V.; the views shown only included the area immediately around the statue, and then pulled back slightly to get the tank in the frame. The only thing that struck me other than the obvious zeal of the crowd was the fact that I noticed more and more people continously rushing to join the festivities. I suppose the "event staff" might have organized the "150" Iraqis to run laps through the frame, but somehow I don't think so.
Anyway-I've banged on long enough; I thought you were merely irresponsible when I first read your post, but I upped the charge to dishonesty when you tried to defend it so vociferously.
You will notice, if you indeed read this, nowhere have I suggested that you are not free to post anything you like in this forum (I'm not a mod; I couldn't
stop you in any case). I do wish you had taken my post in the spirit I meant it; i.e., you needed to provide some balance. You ignored me, as is surely your right. Rest assured, though: If you don't provide the balance, I'm gonna try.
Also, don't insult me, yourself, and everybody else here by asking for the "3-year-old" explanation-it is plain you are at least a very precocious 10-year-old.
Actually, I'm still trying to figure out why you think Saddam put a statute of himself next to a strategically placed hotel, knowing full well that American News Media would film it being torn down?Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@13 April 2003 - 22:44
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the AQ/Iraq theme your were foisting earlier today, but so far you've only managed to parakeet j2k4's postings, criticize me for not having aesthetically pleasing posts, and mimick, in fashion most juvenile, "Middle Eastern English."
Is this another of your conspiracy theories?
Are you behind it?
Where were you on the morning of September 11, 2001?
Don't take speculation as fact, my friend.
Thats the stuff that wars are made of and we've had quite enough of those, thank you.
Peace
Edited to add this:
Personally, I prefer a day at the zoo with a loved one, to trying to figure out if maybe something could have happened a certain way.
Especially when the available information, in all honesty, points to several possibilities, only one of which is yours.
Again, Peace
I understand entirely your misgivings regarding my posts,but speaking as an Israeli/American living here in the UK,I feel I have a right to express my opinions & doubts about the motives for this farcical situation.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@15 April 2003 - 02:13
Yeah, I think the US has a monopoly on propaganda and we ALL misjudged Saddam.
I mean, in his video release he was just casually strolling down the streets of Baghdad, giving a shout out to his homies, while black smoke billowed in the backround. People spontaneously surrounded him, declaring their love and he proceded to KISS A FRIGGIN' BABY!.
That was not staged, that was real! Got any aerial photos of that session. Hell, drop back 20 feet and you would see the cue cards, see the man releasing the doves of freedom from their cages, to fly over his head.
I heard that when the stautue of Saddam fell and cracked in half, candy poured out of the center as Saddam is so sweet on the inside. This was editted out by Western conspirators.
I actually analyized the footage from the statue scene. IF you use the right filter, you can see that the burly Iraqi pounding on the base with a sledgehammer, is no more than Donald Rumsfeld in a specially designed robot.
Open you eyes America, Iraq loves Saddam, and we are no where, we are snake!
In fact, we do this ALL for Israel. Have you guys be catching all this anti-semitism (sp) from DiogenesUK and Fallenknight308 (who provides a nice link). I love it, what twisted paranoids they are.
As I've stated on several occasions,I supported the overthrow of Saddam & his cohorts,but I've seen enough puppet governments to know one when I see one,and Bush 'leads' one of the all-time classics of that genre.
Of course I realise that any criticism of Israel is taboo,that's exactly why they can carry out their own ethnic cleansing with impunity.
Just wait 'til their clerics,who hold the balance of power there, decide it's the pre-ordained time to say bye-bye to this planet,there's nothing the Americans or anyone else will be able to do about it.
I have many good friends in Israel,but they aren't fooled by any of the rhetoric passing for fact in the 'fog of war'
Shalom
Now, THERE is a provocative statement-care to expand and expound, DiogenesUK?Quote:
Originally posted by DiogenesUK@15 April 2003 - 03:56
Just wait 'til their clerics,who hold the balance of power there, decide it's the pre-ordained time to say bye-bye to this planet,there's nothing the Americans or anyone else will be able to do about it.
I await any response with 'bated breath, as I must step away for a while.........
J2K4,
I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above. Could you please return them when your done.
Thanks in advance.
Diogenes,
You seem to have a unique perspective. My experience with Jewish people has been largely positive. I grew up in a suburb where most of the population was Jewish. My best friends were Jewish and I can never remember religion being an issue. My apperance is overtly non-Jewish, almost the stereotypical antithesis, but this never seemed to bother the parents of any of my friends. I felt as welcome in their homes as I did at the homes of my nonJewish friends.
Without going into my life story, I find it hard to understand how these people I grew up with would support what you are describing in Israel.
Most Americans couldn't find Israel on a map, most Americans could care less about it. We do have a very active and powerful Jewish contingent in our population who lobby for pro-Israeli policies for sure, but Americans are not Pro-Israel and it is certainly no sacred cow, which is above criticism.
Your comments intrigue me, please clarify.
Done for the nonce-feel free.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@15 April 2003 - 08:19
J2K4,
I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above. Could you please return them when your done.
Thanks in advance.
You already own a nice selection; may I borrow yours occasionally?
Done for the nonce-feel free.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+15 April 2003 - 18:36--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 April 2003 - 18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@15 April 2003 - 08:19
J2K4,
I awoke this morning to find my dictionary empty. Suspicious, I checked the forum and found all the words in your posts above. Could you please return them when your done.
Thanks in advance.
You already own a nice selection; may I borrow yours occasionally? [/b][/quote]
Oh come on now, you know the majority of my vocabulary is compromised of neologisms.
Feel free to use them, but watch out for the man with the butterfly net.