Pelican Parts Forums - They got the BASTARD! (apparently)

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - They got the BASTARD! (apparently) (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/139596-they-got-bastard-apparently.html)

Okay, I will spell it out. In points I believe 6 and 11 you claim the media is controlled and academia is censored.

Your first source is CBS and CRITICAL of the administration, so much for "control".

Your second source is from George Washington University again CRITICAL of the administration, so much for censorship.

I don't have a problem with people expressing viewpoints different from mine and apparently neither does our "fascist" government.

Maybe you would believe that the sky was blue if npr said it without checking for yourself. :)

Pete

Pete, I didn't say that the media is COMPLETELY controlled by the state. You need to pay more attention to to the 6 . . .

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Did you know that all the major corporate media outllets have agreed not to publicise images of 'collateral damage' such as dead women and babies (the occasional dead combatant is allowed though) for concerns that it could be used by the 'enemy' as propaganda to undermine our willingness to fight the war. That sure sounds like wartime censorship to me.

And on the other

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

While there are dozens of examples I think a short story about the ACTA says it all . .

Quote:

Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman Group Puts Out a Blacklist

by Roberto J. Gonzalez
December 13, 2001
San Jose Mercury News

AN aggressive attack on freedom has been launched upon
America's college campuses. Its perpetrators seek the
elimination of ideas and activities that place Sept. 11
in historical context, or critique the so-called war on
terrorism.

The offensive, spearheaded by the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, a Washington-based group, threatens
free speech, democratic debate and the integrity of
higher education. In an incendiary report, "Defending
Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,"
the American Council claims that "colleges and
university faculty have been the weak link in America's
response" to Sept. 11. It also asserts that "when a
nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its
civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries."

The report documents 117 campus incidents as "evidence"
of anti-Americanism. More than 40 professors are named,
including the president of Wesleyan University, who
suggested in an open letter that "disparities and
injustices" in American society and the world can lead
to hatred and violence.

Other examples abound. A Yale professor is criticized
for saying, "It is from the desperate, angry and
bereaved that these suicide pilots came." A professor
emeritus from the University of Oregon is listed for
recommending that "we need to understand the reasons
behind the terrifying hatred directed against the U.S.
and find ways to act that will not foment more hatred
for generations to come."

Dozens more comments, taken out of context and culled
from secondary sources, are presented as examples of an
unpatriotic academy.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni was founded
in 1995 by Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, and
Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Its Website claims that it
contributed $3.4 billion to colleges and universities
last year, making it "the largest private source of
support for higher education." Cheney is cited several
times in the report, and is reportedly a close associate
of its authors, Jerry Martin and Anne Neal.

Although the council's stated objectives include the
protection of academic freedom, the report resembles a
blacklist. In a chilling use of doublespeak, it affirms
the right of professors to speak out, yet condemns those
who have attempted to give context to Sept. 11,
encourage critical thinking, or share knowledge about
other cultures. Faculty are accused of being "short on
patriotism" for attempting to give students the
analytical tools they need to become informed citizens.

Many of those blacklisted are top scholars in their
fields, and it appears that the report represents a kind
of academic terrorism designed to strike fear into other
academics by making examples of respected professors.

The report might also function to extend control over
sites of democratic debate -- our universities -- where
freedom of expression is not only permitted but
encouraged.

At my campus, symposiums, teach-ins and lectures about
religion, terrorism, central Asia, the Middle East and
U.S. foreign policy have been organized recently. A
teach-in entitled "Background for Understanding" drew
hundreds of students, faculty and citizens from many
political and intellectual perspectives. The audience
had the opportunity to ask questions and comment freely.
The discussion was lively and at times contentious.

As a microcosm of society, the university is a place
where people of different ethnicities, religions,
generations, and class backgrounds exchange ideas and
opinions. Anyone who has visited Bay Area colleges knows
that they are especially rich places for intercultural
exchange.

The vigorous and often heated debates typical of such
encounters are a hallmark of democratic processes. On
most campuses this can still be done freely, but
official accusations of anti-Americanism might
intimidate and silence some voices. That is not
patriotism, but fascism. The American Council's position
is inaccurate and irresponsible. Critique, debate, and
exchange -- not blind consensus or self-censorship --
have characterized America since its inception.

Our universities are not failing America. On the
contrary, they are among the few institutions offering
alternatives to canned mainstream media reports.

The targeting of scholars who participate in civic
debates might signal the emergence of a new McCarthyism
directed at the academy. Before it escalates into a
full-blown witch hunt in the name of "defending
civilization," faculty, students and citizens should
speak out against these acts of academic
terrorism.Roberto J. Gonzalez is an assistant professor
in the Department of Anthropology at San Jose State
University.

Where are these "points" you guys are talking about? I'd like to read them...

Uhm. . 350, our government provided this tool you're using, called the I N T E R N E T.

(Remember, your smart-guy Al created it. )

Are you afraid Bush is going to take this away from you, for your obvious dissension?

Yeah, and the only reason the internet is as free as it is comes from the fact that it is fairly unregulated for content and the sources for information it contains are not all centralized and controlled by major corporations just yet.

We can enjoy it while it lasts.

Big business was also behind buiding out the network we now enjoy but since their main concern was connection fees other corporate entities also got bit in the a$$ by this development due to digital piracy.

You gotta love when major government and corporate projects accidentally benefit the little guy. Its kind of like how GPS, designed to blow up people more accurately than even before also benefits the little guy trying to find his way to a certainl locatoin on the planet.

All I can say is don't confuse government and corporate largesse with egalitarianism

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Where are these "points" you guys are talking about? I'd like to read them...

It can be found about half way down the following page in a post by WideBody911 . . .

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139393&perpage=20&pagen umber=2

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
According to your logic, Hitler should probably have been left alone, which would have prevented the russians from being part of the victors of WWII, and probably prevented the cold war from happening, right ? :rolleyes:

you were probably very young when this was happening. The reasons for building Iraq aginst Iran were common knowledge due to the widespread news and "professional" coverage.
The issue was not a divided one. You can still do simple research to explain the situation.

And using Hitler and the Soviet Union is a routine type of reply to an issue someone doesn't understand, instead of accepting the "facts". Your beliefs have been challenged and you won't allow simple knowledge to challenge it. Dictators have been using the approach forever when their "systems" don't satisfy their populations, ie: blame it on the enemy, or as used today, the infidels.

Quote:

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Great news for the US and Iraqis, and evidence of our diligence.

Get ready for the parade of those who will be bitter about US' success.

JP

No parade here! This is good news, of course. I am very hopeful that it will assist in reducing the guerilla attacks in Iraq, although I think it is wishful to believe that they will stop.

I need to quote Pete for this next bit:

Some innocent people died in this campaign and that is unfortunate but it was never the goal and if we "pissed off the rest of the world", that's a small price to pay for protecting the security of our nation and even the ones we "piss off". 63 countries stood with us in this fight and the right thing was done.

I think it is important to note that very few countries initially stood with the US in the war. The bulk of the 63 have pitched in to help clean up and rebuild Iraq --> this is very different to supporting the war. New Zealand falls firmly into this category - we were against the war but, of course, willing to help rebuild (and I don't mean the contracts - we'll get none of them).

And I still think the "protecting our nation" bit you state is terrible.

Think of international relationships as inter-personal relationships. Imagine what type of person (family? might be a better analogy) the US would be given how it has acted at certain times in the past few months. It has ranged full spectrum (capricious agression to generous rebuild).

Quote:

Please Ronin, since you seem to be much older and knowlegeable than me, give me a little course on the reasons that brought the US administration to support Irak agsinst Iran. I have to admit that at that time, I was in France, so I may not have been exposed to the same information. I would also like to see what kind of rationale you will pull out that can justify mass murder at one time in history, and condemn it 20 years later. To me, it is called pure hypocracy. Are you able to change my viwepoint ? I am a rather open minded person, so just give it a try.

Aurel

Is Aurel really Tabbydoll????

I thought I was on your ignore list, pwd72s,
What is wrong with you ? Can`t you just ignore me ? I would gladly ignore you.

Aurel

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
Please Ronin, since you seem to be much older and knowlegeable than me, give me a little course on the reasons that brought the US administration to support Irak agsinst Iran. I have to admit that at that time, I was in France, so I may not have been exposed to the same information. I would also like to see what kind of rationale you will pull out that can justify mass murder at one time in history, and condemn it 20 years later. To me, it is called pure hypocracy. Are you able to change my viwepoint ? I am a rather open minded person, so just give it a try.

Aurel

Iran was very militarily strong, with a large population for cannon fodder. Iran politics was on a mid-east power grab. Number 2 on the power scale was Iraq, with a smaller population for cannon fodder. The ongoing attrition between the both of them would have allowed Iran to win.. thus an Iran dictatoriship of the whole middle east would have been in play.
The game was to leave two castrated dictatorships in the middle east.

I don't understand your "mass murder" .
If that is your defination of "War" ?
Then it will be good news that democracys never commit "mass murder" against each other. So the more democracys there are the less chance of more "mass murder". So there is now another historical chance to create more democracys in the world. Bingo

Ronin,

So, you will admit that the US gameplan has always been to keep the middle-east divided, to avoid a middle-east power grab by any country. And why the middle-East ? Because of oil, evidently.
What changed now ? There is no more power to counter an american power-grab of the middle east. So what we are witnessing IS that power-grab.
Promoting a war situation was enabling mass murder, yes.

Aurel

as far as what to do with him, i say we make a reality TV show out of him

and after that bush and him can go in the boxing ring which one would you put your dollers on??

think about it lots of money to be made here
it could fund the rebuilding of his country.

but the "blow job haters" will sooner just chop his head off in a dark cell some where which i say is no fun.

after all he went after someones daddy.

late
k

The last time I checked Iraq attacked Iran at the bequest of the US due to the overthrow of the US puppet the shah.

What history book are you getting your info from Ronin?

I'm sure if you want to believe the US and Saddam's side of the argument he was just defending himself from those crazy fundamentalist iranians and kurds.

" to avoid a middle-east power grab by any country."
--- to avoid a single dictatorship by one country of the whole mid east with WMD.

" There is no more power to counter an american power-grab of the middle east."
--- I think the world wide business power grab would be a clearer statement. China's business est. is licking their chops.
China, BTW, is a developing business that contributes to strengthing our standard of living here in the US.

"Promoting a war situation was enabling mass murder, yes."
--- so then "war" = "mass murder", OK

then from my previous post...
"Then it will be good news that democracys never commit "mass murder" against each other. So the more democracys there are the less chance of more "mass murder". So there is now another historical chance to create more democracys in the world. Bingo"

Aurel/Ron

Originally posted by 350HP930

"The last time I checked Iraq attacked Iran at the bequest of the US due to the overthrow of the US puppet the shah.
What history book are you getting your info from Ronin? "
--- huh!
I don't remember discussing who started the war ?

"I'm sure if you want to believe the US and Saddam's side of the argument he was just defending himself from those crazy fundamentalist iranians and kurds."
--- huh!
I don't remember discussing who started the war ?

so if this is another topic then my previous posts here were acceptable

Originally posted by slakjaw

"as far as what to do with him, i say we make a reality TV show out of him"
--- LOL, but great hollywood business.

"and after that bush and him can go in the boxing ring which one would you put your dollers on??"
--- LOL, but great Lottery possibility [state income] business

"think about it lots of money to be made here
it could fund the rebuilding of his country.:
--- "business is business"

I remember during the Iran/Iraq war that the joke was that we were "bucking for a tie". :D

And you can bet your ass that every major studio will be trying to get to Saddam in the AM for the worldwide movie rights of his life story. Hey, business is business, right? ;) Just ask Halliburton.

And you will never hear about "Weapons of mass distruction" again from this administration. "Oops. Did we say that?" :rolleyes:

Never got the liberal criticism about Weapons of Mass Destruction. You know that Saddam had them because he gassed thousands of Kurds. We asked for evidence that they were destroyed. They did not provide the evidence that all the weapons were destroyed. So, finding Iraq in violation of their obligation to report the WMD destruction, we attacked. There's a million acres of Iraqi soil under which they could be buried. Not sure we'll ever find them, and not sure I really care at this point.

So brawlins, do you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa clause as well as saddam's WMDs.

Respected authorities are telling sources around the world they all exist so it must be true, correct?

Perhaps you should read the following article and rethink about how much you have heard about saddam's WMDs are true and how much is pure propaganda.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0307/wmdhunt.html

Quote:

The Great WMD Hunt
The media knew they were there--but where are they?
By Seth Ackerman

By the time the war against Iraq began, much of the media had been conditioned to believe, almost as an article of faith, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bulging with chemical and biological weapons, despite years of United Nations inspections. Reporters dispensed with the formality of applying modifiers like "alleged" or "suspected" to Iraq's supposed unconventional weapon stocks. Instead, they asked "what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America" (NBC Nightly News, 1/27/03). They wrote matter-of-factly of Washington's plans for a confrontation "over Iraq's banned weapons programs" (Washington Post, 1/27/03). And they referred to debates over whether Saddam Hussein was "making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" (Time, 2/3/03).

All of this came despite repeated reminders from the chief U.N. weapons inspector that it was his job to determine if Iraq was hiding weapons, and that it should not simply be assumed that Iraq was doing so.

So with much of southern Iraq in the hands of coalition forces by the weekend after the opening of hostilities, reporters naturally started asking where the weapons were: "Bush administration officials were peppered yesterday with questions about why allied forces in Iraq have not found any of the chemical or biological weapons that were President Bush's central justification for forcibly disarming Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government," the Washington Post reported (3/23/03).

Miraculously, the answer seemed to come that Sunday night (3/23/03), when military officials told the media of a "chemical facility" found in the southern town of Najaf. "Bob, as you know, there's a lot of talk right now about a chemical cache that has been found at a chemical facility," MSNBC anchor Forrest Sawyer told White House correspondent Bob Kur. "I underscore, we do not know what the chemicals are, but it sure has gotten spread around fast."

It sure had. Over on Fox News Channel (3/23/03), the headline banners were already rolling: "HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY FOUND IN SO IRAQ.... REPORTS: 30 IRAQIS SURRENDER AT CHEM WEAPONS PLANT.... COAL TROOPS HOLDING IRAQI IN CHARGE OF CHEM WEAPONS." The Jerusalem Post, whose embedded reporter helped break the story along with a Fox correspondent, announced in a front-page headline (3/24/03), "U.S. Troops Capture First Chemical Plant."

The next day (10/24/03), a Fox correspondent in Qatar quietly issued an update to the

story: The "chemical weapons facility discovered by coalition forces did not appear to be an active chemical weapons facility." Further testing was required. In fact, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago (Dow Jones wire, 3/24/03).

"First solid confirmed existence"

So went the weapons hunt. On numerous occasions, the discovery of a stash of illegal Iraqi arms was loudly announced--often accompanied by an orgy of triumphalist off-the-cuff punditry--only to be deflated inconspicuously, and in a lower tone of voice, until the next false alarm was sounded. In one episode, embedded NPR reporter John Burnett (4/7/03) recounted the big news he'd learned from a "top military official": "the first solid confirmed existence of chemical weapons by the Iraqi army." According to Burnett, an army unit near Baghdad had discovered "20 BM-21 medium-range rockets with warheads containing sarin nerve gas and mustard gas."

When NPR Morning Edition anchor Susan Stamberg asked Burnett, "So this is really a major discovery, isn't it?" he assented: "If it turns out to be true, the commander told us this morning this would be a smoking gun. This would vindicate the administration's claims that the Iraqis had chemicals all along." Of course, it turned out not to be true. A Pentagon official, Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told reporters the next day (4/8/03) that he had "seen nothing in official reports that would corroborate that."

On April 26, ABC World News Tonight blared an "exclusive" report: "U.S. troops discover chemical agents, missiles and what could be a mobile laboratory in Iraq." Correspondent David Wright explained that the Army soldiers had found "14 55-gallon drums, at least a dozen missiles and 150 gas masks" testing positive for chemical weapons, including a nerve agent and a blistering agent. He added that an Army lieutenant "says the tests have an accuracy of 98 percent."

Perhaps somewhat self-consciously, ABC followed Wright's report with a short segment about previous weapons claims that turned out to be false alarms. But the network continued to pump the story the next day, with anchor Carole Simpson introducing it as the lead segment on World News Sunday (4/27/03): "For the second day in a row, some of the preliminary tests have come back positive for chemical agents."

But when the U.S. Mobile Exploration Team (MET Bravo) arrived on the scene to conduct its own tests, it "tentatively concluded that there are no chemical weapons at a site where American troops said they had found chemical agents and mobile labs," the New York Times reported the next day (4/28/03). A member of the team told the Times simply: "The earlier reports were wrong."

True believers

Some of the more gung-ho media weren't discouraged at all by the constant false alarms. According to Rush Limbaugh's website (4/7/03), "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq.... You know it killed NPR to report that the 101st Airborne found a stockpile of up to 20 rockets tipped with sarin and mustard gas.... Our troops have found dozens of barrels of chemicals in an agricultural facility 30 miles northwest of Baghdad."

"The discovery of these weapons of mass destruction doesn't surprise me," Limbaugh explained on his radio show (4/7/03). "The only part of it that surprises me is that we discovered them in Iraq." If U.S. forces were to look in Syria, he proposed, they would probably find an additional "huge cache" of smuggled weaponry.

On April 11, a Fox News report, still posted to the network's website as late as July,

announced: "Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex." Sourced to an embedded reporter from the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the story was soon debunked by U.S. officials (AP, 4/15/03).

Fox didn't mention that the "massive" underground facility "discovered" beneath a military compound had actually been subject to continuous on-site U.N. monitoring for years. Instead, the network featured a soundbite from "former Iraqi scientist" George Gazi, who declared: "I think this demonstrates the failure of the U.N. weapons inspections and demonstrates that our guys are going to find the weapons of mass destruction."

But by the beginning of May, the administration gave up the ghost--apparently deciding that the day-by-day coverage of the weapons search, a slow drip of constant negative findings, was eroding the credibility of their prewar claims. In a series of interviews and off-the-record conversations, officials tried to talk down expectations, letting it be known that they now predicted no weapons would be found at all: An anonymous leak from a "senior Bush administration official" yielded a front-page article in the Financial Times (5/2/03): "The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he would be 'amazed if we found weapons-grade plutonium or uranium' and it was unlikely large volumes of biological or chemical material would be discovered." Condoleezza Rice speculated that Iraq's weapons programs might only exist "in bits and pieces" (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/1/03).

So how had the media come to be so convinced of the weapons' existence? And could they have seen past the White House spin had they chosen to?
. . . . .