BBO Discussion Forums: Propaganda SpinMasters At Work? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 10 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Propaganda SpinMasters At Work? Iran and its nuclear capability

#141 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-14, 19:11

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

Here's something I hadn't heard - call it the New and Improved Domino Theory:

Quote

Republican allies of the president are battling against the resolution sponsored by Democrats against the war.

“This battle is the most visible part of a global war” against terrorists, countered the House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner. “If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple.”


I see. And your proof of that assertion is......????

Well that is the argument and debate.

Some argue that 9-11 was proof of that. They attacked us many times oversees, we did not nothing so they took the next step and followed us home.

The argument is we show lack of will in Iraq or Iran or Afganistan again and they will follow us home.

I am only trying to show the other side of the debate, not that I agee with it.
0

#142 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-14, 19:13

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

Here's something I hadn't heard - call it the New and Improved Domino Theory:

Quote

Republican allies of the president are battling against the resolution sponsored by Democrats against the war.

“This battle is the most visible part of a global war” against terrorists, countered the House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner. “If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple.”


I see. And your proof of that assertion is......????

i think he's just voicing something that's been bandied about for awhile now, and the only proof if a negative one - that since 9/11 (and since we started taking the war to the terrorists), we've had no attacks..
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#143 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,190
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-14, 19:26

luke warm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:13 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

Here's something I hadn't heard - call it the New and Improved Domino Theory:

Quote

Republican allies of the president are battling against the resolution sponsored by Democrats against the war.

“This battle is the most visible part of a global war” against terrorists, countered the House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner. “If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple.”


I see. And your proof of that assertion is......????

i think he's just voicing something that's been bandied about for awhile now, and the only proof if a negative one - that since 9/11 (and since we started taking the war to the terrorists), we've had no attacks..

Well, that's all fine and dandy and may even have some bit of merit to it until you stop and remember that......... Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 - there were no close ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

To keep insinuating that Iraq has someting to do with terrorists - which the statement asserts, is simply to keep alive refudiated claims. It used to be terrorists were people who killed innocents in terror attacks - but now we have redefined that word to include militias using military hardware against an invading force in their country and to armies opposed to the U.S. occupation. Are we fearful that leaving Iraq will bring the Mehdi army marching into Sacremento?

If we were actually going after terrorists it would be a different matter. In that case if we cut and run the terrorists could claim a victory or lack of determination. But Iraq was never about terrorists. It still is not.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#144 User is offline   Impact 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 2005-August-28

Posted 2007-February-14, 19:29

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2007, 07:37 PM, said:

Hey, at one time the colonialists in pre-U.S.A. might have been considered terrorists. They didn't wear uniforms and fired on unsuspecting Briitish soldiers passing by. Whether terrorist or freedom fighter depends on your point of view.

I agree strongly with Richard that terrorism is a tactic. That tactic has proven to be successful for organizations like the IRA, the PLO, Hezbollah, and others; however, once the goal is reached the terror deceases or even ends. Of course, it's handy to put people like Hezbollah on the terrorist list as you then have a built-in reason to ingnore diplomacy with them or listen to their views.

One of the most troubling aspects of this administration to me has been its method of relying on innuendo, generalities, and repetition to make its case. But I can't really blame them for this as they are relying on the mindset shown by the public - that is I'll listen to an explantaion of the middle east turmoil as long as you can do it in under 2 mintues on the nightly news. Give me a slogan I can paste on my bumber sticker or print on my shirt. Instant gratification.

We have indeed met the enemy - and indeed he is us - all of us.

Attacking civilian population (and visitors) of a state with intent to kill, where you disagree with the state's policy is the relevant point of distinction rahter than wearing uniforms (albeit I accept the historical allusion as likely to be accurate in 1776).

It is not even as if there is any attempt to find out the views on any issue of the particular unfortunates targeted. It is an attempt to destroy a society by hte very randomness of the "terror". Hence : terrorism.

In the case of Hezbollah the contiuing denial of the right of existence of the state of Israel suggests that "the goal" represented is somewhat more extreme than a mere state of their own. The only state that has been acceptable for years on an official basis by the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah has been the complete destruction of Israel and absorbtion by others...

Also, the not so slight suggestion that may not be mere rhetoric, to "kill all the Jews" does tend to engender some qualms if you happen to fall into the relevant ethnic (for want of a better description) group!

Sure "terrorist" is an emotive word but that is precisely their objective: to strike terror into Israeli hearts (and indeed tourists so that they are discouraged from going to Israel).

Why bend over backwards being PC about potential motives when the term actually accords with their (short-term) objective ?
0

#145 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-14, 19:47

winston said:

Well, that's all fine and dandy and may even have some bit of merit to it until you stop and remember that......... Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 - there were no close ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

even if that's true, how does it follow? unless you think it's coincidental, the fact is that since we've begun fighting 'over there' we've had no attacks here...
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#146 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,190
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-14, 20:09

luke warm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:47 PM, said:

winston said:

Well, that's all fine and dandy and may even have some bit of merit to it until you stop and remember that......... Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 - there were no close ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

even if that's true, how does it follow? unless you think it's coincidental, the fact is that since we've begun fighting 'over there' we've had no attacks here...

Why attack here when we keep sending them targets? They don't have to worry about silly things like passports, visas, money.....

Do you think it is simple to create a terrorist attack on American soil? From the 1993 bombing of the WTC until 2000 there were also no terrorist attacks - what did that prove? Maybe that the Bill of Rights stops terrorists attacks - cause we had those rights back then.

Or it may be that it's simply damned hard to organize a terrorist attack in a foreign country from halfway around the world sitting in a cave.

I also find this a disturbing tone:

Quote

even if that's true


I realize that even today 75% of Bush supporters still believe Saddam had WMD and chemical stockpiles, but to still hold out hope that the entire Bushian story will someday be vindicated is to me like hoping the tooth fairy will appear. So let's try to be as clear as possible about Bush reported claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection - it was a claim used to start a war, after all.

Quote

The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely.[4] The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two


I don't see the word "if" in there.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#147 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-February-14, 20:14

luke warm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:47 PM, said:

even if that's true, how does it follow? unless you think it's coincidental, the fact is that since we've begun fighting 'over there' we've had no attacks here...

That's....ummm...laughable.

How do you explain that for almost 8 years after the attacks in 1993 we didn't have any attacks here? Coincidence?

How do I explain it? How do I explain how we failed to catch the terrorists in 2001? I mean, we had one of the terrorists in custody. Several of them were on the FBI's Most Wanted list and using their real names. They used BOX KNIVES, for goodness sake! If I had written a movie where five guys with box knives took over an airplane prior to 9/11, they'd have laughed me out of the studio.

How about this? We didn't have any terrorist attacks from '93 through 2000 because we caught them all, including the 'Millenium bombers'. In 2000 and 2001, we stopped trying hard, for whatever reason. Now, we're trying hard again. If we get so lazy that we stop checking people coming into this country against the Most Wanted lists, allow people to take over a plane with box knives, and have reports from the FBI Denver and Minneapolis screaming about terrorists learning how to fly planes into buildings sitting on higher-ups' desks, it won't take the terrorists too long to take advantage.

If Iraq has made us so gosh darned safe, why are security measures now so much heavier than they were before we invaded? Anybody want to seriously argue that if we took away the TSA, the FBI/Customs cross-checking, the secured doors in aircraft, the new subway and port checking, that we'd be safer now than we were prior to 9/11?

Anybody?
0

#148 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-15, 09:12

You can only disarm a person, you can't disarm an idea.

As long as the U.S. insists on making itself a target.....they will get hammered or they will have to complete the "bunker-mentality" that they started after 9-11.

How not to be a target? Stop interfering and start encouraging. Foreign aid based on peaceful principles and developmental aid based on sustainable resources. Starting at home would be ideal. Demonstrate the principles that created the nation. Welcome those huddled masses. Reach out to those in need. A happy neighbour is a friendly neighbour and in this day and age, every country in the world now lives right next door.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#149 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-February-15, 09:22

Al_U_Card, on Feb 15 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

You can only disarm a person, you can't disarm an idea.

As long as the U.S. insists on making itself a target.....they will get hammered or they will have to complete the "bunker-mentality" that they started after 9-11.

How not to be a target? Stop interfering and start encouraging. Foreign aid based on peaceful principles and developmental aid based on sustainable resources. Starting at home would be ideal.

Tell that to Spain and Indonesia.

It's like telling a rich businessman who travels through a low-rent district how to not get mugged.

You can give money to beggars on the street and be nice to everybody....and everybody will feel sorry for you when you get mugged.

Or you can carry a gun and have the cops crack down in your neighborhood. Now you're less likely to get mugged, but if you are mugged you're more likely to get killed.

Or you can carry a 'spare' wallet with $20-$50 buck in it to give the mugger. Now you're more likely to get mugged, but it won't hurt any.

But the only way to guarantee you won't get mugged is to leave the scene entirely, look yourself in your house, and refuse all visitors.


We're rich. We're a target. Playing nice won't change that.
0

#150 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-15, 09:32

Maybe we can appease them by being nicer and giving them more money.

I see Bush is sending more troops not only to Iraq but today to Afghanistan, another civil war or tribal war.

Where is Congress, are they working this week?
0

#151 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-15, 10:08

You missed my point. If the rich guy invests time and money in improving the chances for those "unfortunates" they wouldn't have a reason to mug him and might just welcome him to their neighbourhood to see how well his help has done.

Now those better off people become loyal customers of the rich guy and ...you know the rest. Something to do with teaching a man to fish, or is that the other thread.....?
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#152 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-February-15, 11:10

Al_U_Card, on Feb 15 2007, 11:08 AM, said:

You missed my point. If the rich guy invests time and money in improving the chances for those "unfortunates" they wouldn't have a reason to mug him and might just welcome him to their neighbourhood to see how well his help has done.

I assume you know people who work with the poor like that...ask them how many times they've been mugged. Odds are that it's more than you have.

There is always somebody who'll kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
0

#153 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-15, 13:28

Despite the tragic truth of your statement, good thing it doesn't dissuade Doctors without Borders....Red Cross....Peace Corps....etc.

Doing the right thing is never wrong.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#154 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-15, 15:53

Al_U_Card, on Feb 15 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Doing the right thing is never wrong.

no, but it is subjective
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#155 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,190
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-15, 18:09

Quote

In the case of Hezbollah the contiuing denial of the right of existence of the state of Israel suggests that "the goal" represented is somewhat more extreme than a mere state of their own. The only state that has been acceptable for years on an official basis by the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah has been the complete destruction of Israel and absorbtion by others...

Also, the not so slight suggestion that may not be mere rhetoric, to "kill all the Jews" does tend to engender some qualms if you happen to fall into the relevant ethnic (for want of a better description) group!

Sure "terrorist" is an emotive word but that is precisely their objective: to strike terror into Israeli hearts (and indeed tourists so that they are discouraged from going to Israel).


IMO, this is an example of why the U.S. is so hated in so much of the world - it starts with an unequivocable bias toward Israel and ends by castigating anyone who does not agree with that bias.

The U.S. had extremely selfish reasons for supporting Israel's declaration of statehood - a strong ally in the middle east - something the U.S. had never before enjoyed.

You are right that Hezbollah does not believe Israel has the right to exist as a nation; however, there are certainly more views of this sort than simply Hezbollah - but the U.S. immediately condemns and outlaws any such thought.

Cultural and religious differences do not equate to terrorism - anti-Zionism is not terrorism - we are ciminalizing, outlawing, condemning, and showing utter disdain for centuries-old beliefs that are different from our own.

There is no simple solution - but labeling with generalities does not help either.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#156 User is offline   Impact 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 2005-August-28

Posted 2007-February-15, 21:35

Winston

1. I am not from USA

2. It is not the difference of opinion that is the problem - it is the right to exist both as humans (given a stated preference and performance to kill them off) and as a state.

3. Anti-zionism is not terrorism: correct.

4. Killing people randomly in Israel is terrorism.

5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism.

6. Your wishful thinking well-intentioned PC view is fine,and may even be pragmatic for you and/or America but IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC MEANING OF THE WORD TERRORIST OR MAKE IT EQUATE ANY THE LESS WITH WHAT THE GROUP does and is.

Calling a spade (no racial overtone intended) a spade is not wrong - and it avoids misunderstandings.
0

#157 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,372
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-February-15, 21:44

Impact, on Feb 16 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism.

In the US at least, his sort of thing is classified as a hate crime, not terrorism.

Here in the US we've seen any number of cases where people have been murdered because they're black or gay or whatever. These are not considered terrorist attacks.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#158 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,190
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-15, 22:21

Impact, on Feb 15 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

Winston

1. I am not from USA

2. It is not the difference of opinion that is the problem - it is the right to exist both as humans (given a stated preference and performance to kill them off) and as a state.

3. Anti-zionism is not terrorism: correct.

4. Killing people randomly in Israel is terrorism.

5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism.

6. Your wishful thinking well-intentioned PC view is fine,and may even be pragmatic for you and/or America but IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC MEANING  OF THE WORD TERRORIST OR MAKE IT EQUATE ANY  THE LESS WITH WHAT THE GROUP does and is.

Calling a spade (no racial overtone intended) a spade is not wrong - and it avoids misunderstandings.

I appreciate the reply.

Your definition of terrorism is much wider than mine - I do not classify centuries-old conflicts of tribal culture as terrorism; perhaps you do. That is your right.

But to use Israel as an example and thereby imply that threatening Israel is Mulim and/or Arab terrorism is to facilitate a Bushian-like generality upon a culture's beliefs that seem in opposition to your own, IMO. I do not agree that the stated desire to rid the world of Israel is terrorism - it is anti-Zionism and has been around since 1948 and the Arab/Israeli war.

Israelis are not automatically wearing the white hat at all times. Jews themselves have not been above using terror as a tactic, as when they bombed the King David Hotel. The latest Israeli attack on Lebanon over the reported kidnapping of 4 Israeli soldiers was as terrorizing to the civilian population of Lebanon as any threat made against Israel by Hezbollah. It is a fact that Israel has been the target of many real terrorists attacks - it is also a fact that Israel has virtually no allies in the middle east and many enemies - but it is also a fact that Israel is not at pure as the driven snow as their treatment of their national Palestinians shows.

There are terrorists in Spain, Italy, Ireland, and across the globe, each with its own agenda that is not targeting Israel's demise.

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, whether it occurs in Israel, the U.S.A., London, or in Rome.

As I stated before, there is no simple solution to the Israel/Arab/Muslin problem - but the U.S. is only making it worse by demonizing and castigating all who oppose the U.S./Israeli views.

And that IMO is why polls show the people of the world consider Bush to be the most dangerous leader in the world - he is forefront in the fight to polarize the world into his world view of black and white.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#159 User is offline   Impact 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 2005-August-28

Posted 2007-February-15, 23:35

Don't cast me as the whitewasher for Israel.

There are a lot of nuances to the conflict(s) in the Middle East.

Don't confuse support for any particular cause or its inherent appeal, with support for the methods.

Your original point was the appellation of "terrorist" or "terrorism".

My comment referred to that.

If you happen to support the Palestinians - so be it.

However an attempt to suggest that Hezbollah and/or Hamas are not terrorist organisations because effectively you support hteir aims is both disingenuous and beneath you.

Note, I am not exculpating Israel or vilifying Palestinians. I just want you to accept that the unpalatable word "terrorist" happens to be an appropriate descriptor for both Hezbollah and Hamas (which is not to say that they can also perform other "civic" work).

The other matter from your various posts appears to be an on-going rejection of Western government utterances, combined with a flagellation of the West which appears to amount to almost paranoia on conspiracies. It is one thing to be an iconoclast but it takes judgement to determine the battles which should be fought.

While it is approriate to have some scepticism as to self-serving press releases, and utterances from politicians and journalists as representing a factual state, I do think it is taking that attitude too far to automatically assume "not A" when "A" is declared.
0

#160 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-16, 01:04

BTW I assume you can be a non Jew and be a citizen in Israel.
I assume being a non Jew is pretty tough though.
Are all babies born there citizens?
I do not know.
0

  • 10 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users