beware of propaganda

[jez]

Just remember: Despite what some would have us believe, this is neither Berlin, 1989(a popular revolution), nor Paris,1945(Liberation of an ally from a foreign power).
Make sure you check the claims you are being fed, before you swallow them.

[jez]

Ok. The image did not come up...check it out!

[Resolute Optimist]

I had a look at the picture... I see the statue of a piece of shit that has estimatedly killed 3 million people being ripped down. And you?
I'm afraid it looks like liberation to me. Or do you share the views of those that say that if the Iraquis wanted him out they would have done it themselves? You have quoted the liberation of France, so will I: the French obviously didn't need to be liberated from the nazis then. Otherwise they would have done it themselves? I know its risquee to make comparisons to other events in history, but if you never do, when do you learn?

Please explain, I'm missing the point.

[Jack]

I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.

Typical spin that is thrown around by foreigners jealous of the United States. Look, we are not the world's policeman but frankly there are a lot of countries whose leaders should be tossed out. Frankly, we should overthrow the African (and N. Korean) dictators as well. But this should not be just the responsibility of the US. Canada and the REST of the FREE WORLD that have benefited from our largesse should join in economically and physically (as in putting their soldiers on the ground) in eliminating these regimes. But the Canadian and European cowards will never take a stand and the US can not just go around and topple countries who are not directly threatening us. Saddam was a threat to us. He possibly had weapons of mass destruction. He was stalling and lying about what he had. It may in the end turn out that nothing was there but how should we know that before we go in and look for ourselves. I mean listening to that Iraqi minister of "information" should be enough to convince anyone of the magnitude of the lies that scum was willing to tell. In addition, we have little confidence in Hans Blix. The security of the American people will be handled by the US government and our military. Bottom line. This war was conducted because it benefited the US and the people of Iraq. This actually has nothing to do with protecting Israel. They just happen to share a common enemy of us. Bombs have been going off there for quite some time without our direct involvement. 9/11 changed that. We will stomp any regime that threatens us directly.

[jez]

I'm afraid it looks like liberation to me. Or do you share the views of those that say that if the Iraquis wanted him out they would have done it themselves? You have quoted the liberation of France, so will I: the French obviously didn't need to be liberated from the nazis then. Otherwise they would have done it themselves?

Not my point. My point was that propaganda is misleading, and to compare the liberation of Baghdad to that of Paris or to the revolutions in Berlin or the rest of Eastern Europe is propaganda, and is misleading.

I know its risquee to make comparisons to other events in history, but if you never do, when do you learn?

It certainly is risque. Of course, we can make comparisons, but if those
comparisons are wrong, then that is misleading. The US did not play a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the liberation of Paris was a totally different story from that of Baghdad, as I explained in my first post.
(and why aren't quotes working properly?)

[cstaylor]

I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.

I really don't understand this argument. If I understand you correctly, "don't help anyone if you can't help everyone"?

I'm not sure if I want to know the answer to this question, but can you briefly summarize your problem with Jews in general and Zionism in particular?

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

I'm afraid it looks like liberation to me. Or do you share the views of those that say that if the Iraquis wanted him out they would have done it themselves? You have quoted the liberation of France, so will I: the French obviously didn't need to be liberated from the nazis then. Otherwise they would have done it themselves?

Not my point. My point was that propaganda is misleading, and to compare the liberation of Baghdad to that of Paris or to the revolutions in Berlin or the rest of Eastern Europe is propaganda, and is misleading.

I know its risquee to make comparisons to other events in history, but if you never do, when do you learn?

It certainly is risque. Of course, we can make comparisons, but if those
comparisons are wrong, then that is misleading. The US did not play a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the liberation of Paris was a totally different story from that of Baghdad, as I explained in my first post.
(and why aren't quotes working properly?)

We didn't play a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall? Hello???? The people behind that wall knew full well who they were in a cold war with. They knew that war wasn't worth fighting just like the Iraqis decided fighting a physical war with the US is moronic. Two places, two types of wars.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.

I really don't understand this argument. If I understand you correctly, "don't help anyone if you can't help everyone"?

I'm not sure if I want to know the answer to this question, but can you briefly summarize your problem with Jews in general and Zionism in particular?

I will tell you my problem with Zionism. The Zionists can't pull it off on their own. That's my problem with it.

[cstaylor]

I was just going to say, "As Gai is to Canadians, Jack is to Jews..."

[jez]

We didn't play a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall? Hello???? The people behind that wall knew full well who they were in a cold war with. They knew that war wasn't worth fighting just like the Iraqis decided fighting a physical war with the US is moronic. Two places, two types of wars.

My point exactly. Propaganda is dangerous, because it results in people like you believing the world is black and white. It seems you believe anything you see in the traditional media, it seems. There's not much I can do for you, other than to advise you to open your ears and eyes, go see some other sources of news, read books, and generally get informed. Unless you're a member of the 'ruling class'/ally, I don't see how it can harm you. Good luck, my friend!

[Jack]

CS,

I anticipated your spin on my post which is why I did not use the word "Jewish" but instead I said Israel. Knowing that Jews are untouchable in the western world so I use Israel.

My beef with the Israeli lobby is that they control America and they have America fight their wars. Deny it all you want, all of the America-Arab conflicts are strictly because of America's support of Israel. If you stopped supporting that country, you have no issues with terrorism. None. Zero. Muslims of any colour side with Palestinians because most of them share the same religion.

So, my point is, the war in Iraq is not about terrorism to America but to remove a threat for Israel. Thousands of Iraqi civilians died to save the live of a few Israelis. Do you want me to spell it even more. Here, I will say it for you. Jews think their lives are worth infinitely more than your life.

[jez]

Jack,
let's say that the pro-Israeli lobby is one of the lobbies that control US policy, along with the anti-Cuba, pro-IRA and pro-business(eg.oil-link to middle east)lobbies, among others. I suppose different lobbies exert more or less pressure depending on the times, though the pro-Israeli lobby has to be the most powerful.

[cstaylor]

I anticipated your spin on my post which is why I did not use the word "Jewish" but instead I said Israel. Knowing that Jews are untouchable in the western world so I use Israel.

The Israeli "lobby", as you put it, is made up of people, AFAIK Jewish people. So, what is your problem with Jewish Israelis?

Next, what is your solution to the problem of Palestine? Return to the pre-67 borders? Better yet, Israeli citizenship given to all Palestinian refugees? These are positive solutions, which would do a lot more than just shaking your fists at some faceless "lobby" (made up of very Jewish people).

[jez]

CS,
All Jews are not pro-Israeli. All Jews are not Zionist. Stop confusing Jews and Israelis.

[cstaylor]

I'm not confusing the issue. I made the statement clearly: what is Jack's issue with Israeli Jews? What is his solution for the fate of Palestine?

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

I'm not confusing the issue. I made the statement clearly: what is Jack's issue with Israeli Jews? What is his solution for the fate of Palestine?

Listen, here is the solution. America should stop all aid to both sides both economic and military. This would mean no more arm sales, no more US federal income tax deduction for contributions to Israel, etc.

All aid to the PLO should also be cut off. Since both sides feel they have a God given right to the land let them fight to the death (as these wars throughout history have been fought). The winner takes all. No need for US intervention here.

After the dust settles there should be peace unless the UN with its great vision decides to undo history again. Listen, here is my view of Zionism. The ejection of the Jews may have been unjust. But there were many such injustices in history. It is reasonable to try to overturn injustices. However, if in overturning an injustice, we commit another injustice that is not acceptable.

[Jack]

This is from Reuters. I pasted the first 3 paragraphs. Read the last paragraph.

Israel to Palestinians: Learn Lesson of Iraq War

By Matt Spetalnick

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said on Thursday it hoped the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would teach the Palestinians the lesson that they must install new leaders and abandon their uprising for independence.

But militant groups spearheading the 30-month-old revolt said they would not be cowed by the U.S. conquest of Baghdad and instead threatened to intensify attacks on Israel.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz hammered home his government's wish that the U.S.-led war on Iraq would not only eliminate one of Israel's sworn enemies but chasten Palestinian militants into laying down their arms.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

This is from Reuters. I pasted the first 3 paragraphs. Read the last paragraph.

Israel to Palestinians: Learn Lesson of Iraq War

By Matt Spetalnick

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said on Thursday it hoped the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would teach the Palestinians the lesson that they must install new leaders and abandon their uprising for independence.

But militant groups spearheading the 30-month-old revolt said they would not be cowed by the U.S. conquest of Baghdad and instead threatened to intensify attacks on Israel.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz hammered home his government's wish that the U.S.-led war on Iraq would not only eliminate one of Israel's sworn enemies but chasten Palestinian militants into laying down their arms.

Thank you for this Jack. You know as an American major taxpayer whose dollars are indirectly the only reason Israel stands, I am very annoyed with the comments of these crackpot Israel politicians who have taken our support for granted. Frankly, the support is generally given because the situation of the Palestinian people and the history of Israel are not greatly understood by Americans. To the overwhelming vast majority of Americans (who are, by the way completely unconnected to the region), the amount of money and costs of supporting Israel have generally been small enough to ignore. In addition, when we see people blowing up themselves and innocent men, women and children it is easy for us to pick a side. We have done this without thinking. Again, we have not thought much about this because frankly, this is just one more foreign shithole.

However, 9/11, this war with Iraq and the possible future wars and domestic terrorism are raising our role in Israel to the forefront. From the bottom of my heart I want to tell Sharon and this other moron to just shut the fuck up and not invoke the name and dignity of America into your problems. Fix your problems yourself.

[Rabid Nelson]

I have two things to say:

First, I don't think the "liberation" of Iraq is so clear-cut. It's not as simple as they didn't have freedom before, and now they're going to play with puppy dogs under the rainbow. Although how much of the Iraqi people support its own government is debatable, you can't deny that it's at least a significant portion. One can be put through horrible unjustices by their government and still believe strongly in their government. Many people live off that spoon fed propoganda like a baby to its mother's bosom. Did the German people rejoice once liberated from Hitler? Did the Chinese people not love their Chairman Mao with all their heart and soul during the Cultural Revolution? The big question is what is going to happen to the Iraqi people now? Is such an abrupt change in their leadership and belief systems really what's best for them? Could there have been another way? Did the US do everything it could to find a less painful way of changing leadership?

Also, keep in mind that in the minds of the Iraqi people, the US is not waging a war against just Saddam, but them, the people, and their way of life. Whether or not that is actually true isn't the issue, just that the Iraqi people believe it. Many who did not fall for the propoganda glorifying Saddam may have still fallen for much of the anti-American propoganda. Many people who hate Saddam see the US as a greater threat still. What kind of problems is this going to create in restructuring Iraqi society, and again, is this really the best way?

Second, I'd like to speak on the issue of WMDs in Iraq. I agree that there are larger issues to consider when dicussing the invasion of Iraq. However, President Bush's main argument has been for quite some time that Iraq needs a regime change due to the proliferation of WMDs. In fact, most of the argument coming directly from his administration has concerned this issue. Progress was being made in fixing the problem of WMDs in Iraq. Many believed that the progress wasn't happened fast enough, but even more agreed (in the UN at least) that the inspectors were doing their jobs. Mr. Bush insisted that the inspectors were not acheiving their objective and used that as one of his main justifications for invading Iraq. Obviously, when the invasion began, international relations between the US and a number of countries were seriously damaged. If no solid evidence ever comes to light that Iraq was indeed not disarming, this could damage the relationship further and possibly deligitimize the American occupation even further than it already has in the eyes of the world. That is why WMDs are still a big deal, even if they were never the most compelling reasons for invading Iraq.

[GomiGirl]

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

[GuyJean]

.. and he allows no dissent. To the extent that the media do not question him openly (or are not allowed to question him, as we saw at his scripted press conference), they too share some complicity in this hypocritical and unpatriotic undermining of American principles.

Which press conference? I think the US media is one of the most balanced in the world.. Where is it more balanced, or diversified? Japan? France? .. Switzerland?

It's funny; my rightist friends think CNN is pinko/commie propaganda, and my leftist friends think it's right-wing war mongering.. So what is it?

I saw a news report on ABC awhile back on the news media's coverage of the Israeli/Palestine problem:

"As long as we're getting a proportionate number of compaints for being either pro-Isael or pro-Palestine, we're doing a good job."

GJ

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Also, keep in mind that in the minds of the Iraqi people, the US is not waging a war against just Saddam, but them, the people, and their way of life. Whether or not that is actually true isn't the issue, just that the Iraqi people believe it. Many who did not fall for the propoganda glorifying Saddam may have still fallen for much of the anti-American propoganda. Many people who hate Saddam see the US as a greater threat still. What kind of problems is this going to create in restructuring Iraqi society, and again, is this really the best way?

Excuse me, where do you get this poppycock that the Iraqis believe we are attacking them. I believe that they know we are doing all we can to limit the damage to Saddam and his ilk. As for people in Iraq thinking we are the greater threat, we will be teaching them about us through our actions. Much like the successful temporary occupation of Japan we can show these people that their former view was wrong (from what I can see we have already accomplished a lot of this). We are not Europeans. We are not out to colonize Iraq and we don't need their resources or money. A mutually beneficial regime will develop, their economy will grow rapidly by at least Arab standards). You are completely wrong and you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of history and your complete lack of knowledge of America. Highly juvenile.

Progress was being made in fixing the problem of WMDs in Iraq.

Says who? The jury is still out. Your ability to leap to assumptions clearly knows no bounds

Many believed that the progress wasn't happened fast enough, but even more agreed (in the UN at least) that the inspectors were doing their jobs. Mr. Bush insisted that the inspectors were not acheiving their objective and used that as one of his main justifications for invading Iraq.

First of all, he should be referred to President Bush not MR. Bush. He is not your neighbor or your public high school principal. He is the leader of the free world (which is comprised of the US/UK some Australians and a host of cowards).

Second. The US complaint with the weapons inspections system was that it was going no where. Saddam stalled and pushed back deadline after deadline. He had his orders and was warned he would suffer the consequences if he did not comply with the timetable (which he could have done). We aren't talking parking tickets here. We are talking about a man who very well could have been arming terrorists with God knows what type of weapons. He doesn't get to park over the line and expect the police to just walk away. In spite of the fact that this should be obvious it clearly isn't to you. What would have happened if Saddam pushed this nonsense back until the Spring. It would have been very difficult for our troops to fight the war in the dead of summer. Then we are waiting for better weather conditions and for Saddam to start the charade again.

Obviously, when the invasion began, international relations between the US and a number of countries were seriously damaged. If no solid evidence ever comes to light that Iraq was indeed not disarming, this could damage the relationship further and possibly deligitimize the American occupation even further than it already has in the eyes of the world. That is why WMDs are still a big deal, even if they were never the most compelling reasons for invading Iraq.

We don't need the support of any of the countries that were not part of the coalition. Our relations were damaged with France/Germany/Russia. No, it is the other way around. They damaged their relations with the US. We don't have anything to worry about. France/Germany and Russia do.

[GomiGirl]

Your ability to leap to assumptions clearly knows no bounds

Hypocrite!!!

[American Oyaji]

GG, how do you find it hypocritical?

People are indeed leaping to conclusions as if the war is completely over and WMDs have not been found.

Truth being, Saddam paid no attention to the weapons inspectors, or international sanctions and he has been assisted by Syria. I believe that when it was evident that the U.S. was coming in, he rolled his stuff across the border into Syria.

Has Saddam heeded the dictates of the U.N. ? No

Was he a threat to the U.S.? Yes. He had al qaeda training camps on Iraqi soil.

Should there be consequences for flouting international law? Yes


During the last Gulf War, the only thing done was to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to beat them across their border. We could have taken out Saddam then, but the international community put up a fuss. They had too much at stake inside Iraq. Fast Forward to the present, the coutries that put up the biggest fuss are the ones that are still doing business with Saddam.

Truth is, France and Russia also flouted the U.N. Security councils dictates. They should be removed from the UNSC for this.

On the other hand.
Bush does indeed dodge difficult questions and blacklist certain reporters for asking questions that the govt would rather avoid. This is indeed a fact. And I take great exception to this. If you have nothing to hide, let them ask their questions.

[Jack]

.. Which press conference? I think the US media is one of the most balanced in the world.. Where is it more balanced, or diversified? Japan? France? .. Switzerland?

It's funny; my rightist friends think CNN is pinko/commie propaganda, and my leftist friends think it's right-wing war mongering.. So what is it?

I saw a news report on ABC awhile back on the news media's coverage of the Israeli/Palestine problem:

"As long as we're getting a proportionate number of compaints for being either pro-Isael or pro-Palestine, we're doing a good job."

GJ

Crap, yes, I believe Japan, Britain and France have a more unbiased and balanced news reporting. What makes you think that CNN or the US media is better? Oh, let me guess, you are American. I watch CNN, BBC, and French language networks. TRUST ME. In america you are being fed 100% bulshit that passes as news. Have you ever seen civilian casualties on US networks? Have you ever seen whar the realu guy on the street in Baghdad thinks of the US invasion? All you see are the 50 or so people cheering the US troops while ignoring the other 5 million. I'll say it again, I cannot stomach the idiotic Jewsih lackeys' (Americans) thinking anymore.

[American Oyaji]

Jack, were you abandoned by your Jewish father?

[cstaylor]

I'll say it again, I cannot stomach the idiotic Jewsih lackeys' (Americans) thinking anymore.

Freudian slip, Mr. "I dislike Israelis, not Jews"?

There's nothing wrong with being a bigot, heck, you and your kind probably make up a majority on this planet.

[GuyJean]

Crap, yes, I believe Japan, Britain and France have a more unbiased and balanced news reporting.

Balanced for what YOU want to see..

What makes you think that CNN or the US media is better?

Scratch the CNN reference. I usually watch ABC, CNN, BBC, PBS, AND the other foreign, non-coalition reports]Oh, let me guess, you are American.[/quote]
Oh, let me guess; you're a self-righteous Canadian.

TRUST ME. In america you are being fed 100% bulshit that passes as news.

Try the News Hour on PBS]Have you ever seen civilian casualties on US networks?[/quote]
Everyday. I don't know what you're watching..

Have you ever seen whar the realu guy on the street in Baghdad thinks of the US invasion?

WTF?.. I have for the past month.. And just like people in the States, there are MANY varying opinions.. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Every morning, I get the good WITH the bad.. Sure, there are pictures of children kissing soldiers, but there are also vivid shots of civilian deaths, and the looming humanitarian crisis.. When the market was bombed, BBC and ABC were one of the first there. Are you sure you're not suffering from 'selective vision'?

All you see are the 50 or so people cheering the US troops while ignoring the other 5 million.

Whatever, man.. People ALL over Iraq are celebrating.. And I see it on ALL networks, even the French. I'm sure the Sunni's are shitting though.

I'll say it again, I cannot stomach the idiotic Jewsih lackeys' (Americans) thinking anymore.

Well, wear that Canadian pin with pride. That'll show us.

Media is a powerful tool, but I also think people see only what they want to most of the time.