|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MEDIA censorship and propaganda inthe USweapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has admitted there are none? How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election in Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation. How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting both violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when after the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the infrastructure lies in shambles? It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States about the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets. Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on the panel with Jordan. When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have been killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more than a myth or a conspiracy theory. (Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.") I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the soldiers. Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national television that her own network was censuring her journalism. Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount. Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently constructing 10 others. Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of the Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed. Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq. But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media continue, day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it reaches the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who are paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After spending eight of the past 14 months reporting fromIraq, I can tell you the points made here are just the tip of the iceberg.
Show quote
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote:
>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >admitted there are none? > >How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election in >Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their >country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent >of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they >felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation. > >How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting both >violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when after >the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of >reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the >infrastructure lies in shambles? > >It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States about >the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the >military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets. > >Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, a >CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted >journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not >only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of >policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on >the panel with Jordan. > >When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have been >killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more >journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one >begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more >than a myth or a conspiracy theory. > >(Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN >staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when >U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who >thought I said or believed otherwise.") > >I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their >cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, >acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't >trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the >soldiers. > >Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national >television that her own network was censuring her journalism. > >Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. >soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. >forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount. > >Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military bases >in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently >constructing 10 others. > >Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of the >Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed. > >Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent >that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq. > >But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media continue, >day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it reaches >the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the >World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the >crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who are >paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The >tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to >violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing >occupation of Iraq. > >Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After >spending eight of the past 14 months reporting fromIraq, I can tell you the >points made here are just the tip of the iceberg. > > Gonna have to explain further for this liberal boy. What is the analysis
behind the argument that 'liberals hate mankind'? I always thought it was the right and fascists who are indifferent to people, and this is spelled out through wars, oppression, and supreme arrogance by republicans over the past 3 or so years. "Brenda White" <bwhite@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message news:1109061737.a10deda76d51f111249e85662bf334b2@meganetnews2...Show quote > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: > >>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>admitted there are none? >> >>How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election >>in >>Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their >>country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent >>of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they >>felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation. >> >>How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting >>both >>violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when >>after >>the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of >>reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the >>infrastructure lies in shambles? >> >>It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States >>about >>the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the >>military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets. >> >>Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, >>a >>CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted >>journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not >>only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of >>policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on >>the panel with Jordan. >> >>When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have >>been >>killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more >>journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one >>begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more >>than a myth or a conspiracy theory. >> >>(Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN >>staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when >>U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who >>thought I said or believed otherwise.") >> >>I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their >>cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, >>acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't >>trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the >>soldiers. >> >>Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on >>national >>television that her own network was censuring her journalism. >> >>Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. >>soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. >>forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount. >> >>Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military >>bases >>in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently >>constructing 10 others. >> >>Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of >>the >>Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed. >> >>Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent >>that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq. >> >>But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media >>continue, >>day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it >>reaches >>the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the >>World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the >>crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who >>are >>paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The >>tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to >>violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing >>occupation of Iraq. >> >>Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After >>spending eight of the past 14 months reporting fromIraq, I can tell you >>the >>points made here are just the tip of the iceberg. >> >> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:12:53 +0000 (UTC), "Alex Smith"
<alastairmcgo***@btopenworld.com> wrote: >Gonna have to explain further for this liberal boy. What is the analysis Nah. There has been a concerted history revision exercise whereby>behind the argument that 'liberals hate mankind'? I always thought it was >the right and fascists who are indifferent to people, and this is spelled >out through wars, oppression, and supreme arrogance by republicans over the >past 3 or so years. Nazism and fascism is to be regarded as a leftwing/liberal creed. The exercise has been remarkably successful with a significant number of the dumber and more hate-filled neocons. "Brenda White" <bwhite@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message news:1109061737.a10deda76d51f111249e85662bf334b2@meganetnews2...> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq hasweapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has admitted there are none? How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election in Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation. How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting both violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when after the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the infrastructure lies in shambles? It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States about the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets. Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on the panel with Jordan. When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have been killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more than a myth or a conspiracy theory. (Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.") I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the soldiers. Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national television that her own network was censuring her journalism. Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount. Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently constructing 10 others. Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of the Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed. Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq. But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media continue, day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it reaches the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who are paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After spending eight of the past 14 months reporting fromIraq, I can tell you the points made here are just the tip of the iceberg. On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: How is it possible someone could post this question to a DVD discussion>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >admitted there are none? ___________________________________________________________ group? Are they dumber than Bush? -- BT Bill Turner posted:
> How is it possible someone could post this question to a DVD discussion there is a popular DVD out there on the matter.> group? Are they dumber than Bush? -- misinformation rules. "Bill Turner" <no***@nohow.com> wrote in message Because there are many DVD's on this subject:news:4l1m11tvt8biiu8crfgfs3otjhlvrhkmta@4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: > >>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>admitted there are none? > ___________________________________________________________ > > How is it possible someone could post this question to a DVD discussion > group? Control Room http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002X8U4I/qid%3D1109131371/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-1616979-1763957 Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001IXT36/104-1616979-1763957?v=glance Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002HDXTQ/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-1616979-1763957?v=glance&s=dvd&st=* The Corporation (2004) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007DBJM8/qid=1109131282/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/104-1616979-1763957?v=glance&s=dvd Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005JNEI/ref=pd_sim_dv_1/104-1616979-1763957?v=glance&s=dvd and one of the best: Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media (1993)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005Y726/qid=1109131517/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-1616979-1763957?v=glance&s=dvd and coming soon! Noam Chomsky:Rebel Without a Pause http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007TKNO2/qid=1109131517/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/104-1616979-1763957?v=glance&s=dvd >Are they dumber than Bush? No. Few are.Show quote > > -- > BT > > > "JA" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has How is it that morons keep posting politics to alt.video.dvd?>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >admitted there are none? (followups redirected) -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ DVD FAQ: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html other FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >admitted there are none? prior to the U.S. invasion. -Rich "RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message There is just as much proof that they moved them to Mars, RichA! And why news:cctq11l9bnodc0j0r76hvaqvrt2pj1b7ii@4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: > >>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>admitted there are none? > That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria > prior to the U.S. invasion. does the world think most Americans are so gullible!? Show quote > -Rich
Show quote
"JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote in news:cvk18e$sho$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: Could it be because those Americans like RichA are so gullible?> > "RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message > news:cctq11l9bnodc0j0r76hvaqvrt2pj1b7ii@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >> >>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>admitted there are none? >> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >> prior to the U.S. invasion. > > There is just as much proof that they moved them to Mars, RichA! And why > does the world think most Americans are so gullible!?
Show quote
"Jim Lovejoy" <nospam@devnull.spam> wrote in message I'm an American living overseas, and always having to apologize for people news:-_KdnZKMapsiJ4PfRVn-3w@nventure.com... > "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote in news:cvk18e$sho$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: > >> >> "RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message >> news:cctq11l9bnodc0j0r76hvaqvrt2pj1b7ii@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >>> >>>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>>admitted there are none? >>> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >>> prior to the U.S. invasion. >> >> There is just as much proof that they moved them to Mars, RichA! And why >> does the world think most Americans are so gullible!? > > Could it be because those Americans like RichA are so gullible? such as he. Show quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Show quote
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:54:54 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: I'm not American. But I'll tell you what; You announce an invasion,> >"RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message >news:cctq11l9bnodc0j0r76hvaqvrt2pj1b7ii@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >> >>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>admitted there are none? >> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >> prior to the U.S. invasion. > >There is just as much proof that they moved them to Mars, RichA! And why >does the world think most Americans are so gullible!? > >> -Rich > you give me 5 months to prepare for it, in a country as large as Iraq, and I guarantee you when you show up with your troops, you won't find one single WMD. I'd have hidden them all and you would never locate them. The ONLY times they've been able to find weapons is when they are tipped off by someone. Think needle in a haystack. -Rich
Show quote
"RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message I tell you what, if you are in a country in the middle of the world's news:6q1v11d1dcjq22cdgnnhrbddaqvai9ma38@4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:54:54 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: > >> >>"RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message >>news:cctq11l9bnodc0j0r76hvaqvrt2pj1b7ii@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >>> >>>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>>admitted there are none? >>> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >>> prior to the U.S. invasion. >> >>There is just as much proof that they moved them to Mars, RichA! And why >>does the world think most Americans are so gullible!? >> >>> -Rich >> > > I'm not American. But I'll tell you what; You announce an invasion, > you give me 5 months to prepare for it, in a country as large as Iraq, largest oil producing region (over the second largest known oil reserve in the world). And I'm in a country that uses 25% of the world's oil...and have a largest military than the rest of the world combined (and with many WMD's), we will make up whatever excuse it takes to invade, and if these lame pretexts don't work; we'll then say that we are introducing democracy (no matter that we supported and backed more dictators than you can shake a stick at...and still do). Remember this invasion/occupation is still considered illegal by international laws standards by most international law experts. > and I guarantee you when you show up with your troops, you won't Maybe...and maybe they didn't exist as most experts have said... and maybe > find one single WMD. I'd have hidden them all and you would never > locate them. The ONLY times they've been able to find weapons is when > they are tipped off by someone. Think needle in a haystack. they are hidden by Martians. Believe what you want - as we kill thousands every week, if it helps you sleep at night. Show quote > -Rich
Show quote
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:17:11 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: Speaking of deluded. Thousands every week??? Crack addict.> >"RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message >news:6q1v11d1dcjq22cdgnnhrbddaqvai9ma38@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:54:54 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >> >>> >>>"RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message >>>news:cctq11l9bnodc0j0r76hvaqvrt2pj1b7ii@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >>>> >>>>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>>>admitted there are none? >>>> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >>>> prior to the U.S. invasion. >>> >>>There is just as much proof that they moved them to Mars, RichA! And why >>>does the world think most Americans are so gullible!? >>> >>>> -Rich >>> >> >> I'm not American. But I'll tell you what; You announce an invasion, >> you give me 5 months to prepare for it, in a country as large as Iraq, > > >I tell you what, if you are in a country in the middle of the world's >largest oil producing region (over the second largest known oil reserve in >the world). And I'm in a country that uses 25% of the world's oil...and have >a largest military than the rest of the world combined (and with many >WMD's), we will make up whatever excuse it takes to invade, and if these >lame pretexts don't work; we'll then say that we are introducing democracy >(no matter that we supported and backed more dictators than you can shake a >stick at...and still do). > >Remember this invasion/occupation is still considered illegal by >international laws standards by most international law experts. > >> and I guarantee you when you show up with your troops, you won't >> find one single WMD. I'd have hidden them all and you would never >> locate them. The ONLY times they've been able to find weapons is when >> they are tipped off by someone. Think needle in a haystack. > >Maybe...and maybe they didn't exist as most experts have said... and maybe >they are hidden by Martians. > > Believe what you want - as we kill thousands every week, if it helps you >sleep at night. -Rich
Show quote
"RichA" <n***@none.com> wrote in message 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the war and "the risk of death news:uib4211vlcqp9vj06rg3vidh2vpl1sftf6@4ax.com... > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:17:11 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: > >> snip >>Remember this invasion/occupation is still considered illegal by >>international laws standards by most international law experts. >> >>> and I guarantee you when you show up with your troops, you won't >>> find one single WMD. I'd have hidden them all and you would never >>> locate them. The ONLY times they've been able to find weapons is when >>> they are tipped off by someone. Think needle in a haystack. >> >>Maybe...and maybe they didn't exist as most experts have said... and maybe >>they are hidden by Martians. >> >> Believe what you want - as we kill thousands every week, if it helps you >>sleep at night. > > Speaking of deluded. Thousands every week??? Crack addict. > -Rich for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the invasion" according to the Lancet medical journal. "An estimated 100000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 US-led invasion, according to a new study." www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/ international/europe/29casualties.html This figure has been widely broadcast...(yes, thousands a week on average) ...all to establish military bases in the world's largest oil producing region... democracy!? Zogby poll:. Sunni Arabs who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 82% Shiites who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 69% Even Time admits the US will not consider removing its new Halliburton built bases. On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:35:24 -0500, RichA <n***@none.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: Suppose for the sake of argument, Rich, that you are correct. Then> >>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>admitted there are none? > That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >prior to the U.S. invasion. > Saddam Hussein had complied with U. S. demands and no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction. What possible justification could there be for an American attack on his country under those circumstances? -- bostnbob ----------
In article <tr9n41926et40eka19c9cnh6nf1aspi***@4ax.com>, bostnbob <bostn***@alt.net> wrote: Show quote > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:35:24 -0500, RichA <n***@none.com> wrote: Trying to use logic with RichA is like trying to feed whole-grain bread to a> >>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >> >>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>admitted there are none? >> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >>prior to the U.S. invasion. >> > > Suppose for the sake of argument, Rich, that you are correct. Then > Saddam Hussein had complied with U. S. demands and no longer possessed > weapons of mass destruction. What possible justification could there > be for an American attack on his country under those circumstances? > > -- bostnbob wolverine. In other words, good of you to try, but you're wasting your time. > >>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has Because Bush told you?? Bush has been lying to you and the world since he> >>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has > >>>admitted there are none? > > learned how to talk. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:24:01 -0600, "Rob" <shadowrap***@mts.net> wrote: Nonsense. You can't 'prove' a negative thing, i.e., you can't prove>Because Bush told you?? Bush has been lying to you and the world since he >learned how to talk. ___________________________________________________________ something does not exist, such as WMDs. -- BT Bill Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:24:01 -0600, "Rob" <shadowrap***@mts.net> wrote: Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard?> > >>Because Bush told you?? Bush has been lying to you and the world since he >>learned how to talk. > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Nonsense. You can't 'prove' a negative thing, i.e., you can't prove > something does not exist, such as WMDs. That something is not practical does not make it impossible. -- Joe On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:16:59 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote:
>Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard? ___________________________________________________________No, not absolutely. Could someone prove I don't have WMDs stashed somewhere in the world? -- BT Bill Turner wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:16:59 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: The point is...."You can't 'prove' a negative thing", used as a blanket > > >>Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard? > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > No, not absolutely. Could someone prove I don't have WMDs stashed > somewhere in the world? rule, is a falsity. For example, it likely cannot be proven that you aren't a time traveller, but it can be proven that you are not a woman. -- Joe On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:24:27 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote:
Show quote >Bill Turner wrote: However, that is not really proving a negative. One can prove the sex>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:16:59 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard? >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________ >> >> No, not absolutely. Could someone prove I don't have WMDs stashed >> somewhere in the world? > > >The point is...."You can't 'prove' a negative thing", used as a blanket >rule, is a falsity. For example, it likely cannot be proven that you >aren't a time traveller, but it can be proven that you are not a woman. of something or the colour or composition of something. The case here is that proving the negative position only requires proof of some other positive and the knowledge that only one state can exist. The issue of "proving a negative" has to do with the existence of a thing, not the state of that thing. G grant kinsley wrote:
Show quote > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:24:27 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: I'm saying that some people mistakenly transliterate one for the other. > > >>Bill Turner wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:16:59 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard? >>> >>> >>>___________________________________________________________ >>> >>>No, not absolutely. Could someone prove I don't have WMDs stashed >>>somewhere in the world? >> >> >>The point is...."You can't 'prove' a negative thing", used as a blanket >>rule, is a falsity. For example, it likely cannot be proven that you >>aren't a time traveller, but it can be proven that you are not a woman. > > > However, that is not really proving a negative. One can prove the sex > of something or the colour or composition of something. The case here > is that proving the negative position only requires proof of some > other positive and the knowledge that only one state can exist. > > The issue of "proving a negative" has to do with the existence of a > thing, not the state of that thing. > > G > "You can't prove something doesn't exist" is not the same thing as "you can't prove a negative thing", which is what the poster stated. That said, it is still possible to prove that some things don't exist, particularly if their presence is readily observable. That it may not be practical to do so is an entirely different matter than whether it is possible. -- Joe On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:10:33 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote:
>I'm saying that some people mistakenly transliterate one for the other. You're absolutely right. I stand corrected.>"You can't prove something doesn't exist" is not the same thing as "you >can't prove a negative thing", which is what the poster stated. ___________________________________________________________ -- BT On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:10:33 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote:
Show quote >grant kinsley wrote: Please tell me what you can prove that doesn't exist?>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:24:27 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Bill Turner wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:16:59 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard? >>>> >>>> >>>>___________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>>No, not absolutely. Could someone prove I don't have WMDs stashed >>>>somewhere in the world? >>> >>> >>>The point is...."You can't 'prove' a negative thing", used as a blanket >>>rule, is a falsity. For example, it likely cannot be proven that you >>>aren't a time traveller, but it can be proven that you are not a woman. >> >> >> However, that is not really proving a negative. One can prove the sex >> of something or the colour or composition of something. The case here >> is that proving the negative position only requires proof of some >> other positive and the knowledge that only one state can exist. >> >> The issue of "proving a negative" has to do with the existence of a >> thing, not the state of that thing. >> >> G >> > >I'm saying that some people mistakenly transliterate one for the other. >"You can't prove something doesn't exist" is not the same thing as "you >can't prove a negative thing", which is what the poster stated. > >That said, it is still possible to prove that some things don't exist, >particularly if their presence is readily observable. That it may not be >practical to do so is an entirely different matter than whether it is >possible. GK grant kinsley wrote:
Show quote > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:10:33 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: It is possible to prove that a live bear the size of Argentina does not > > >>grant kinsley wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:24:27 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Bill Turner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:16:59 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Could someone prove that you do not have WMDs in your back yard? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>___________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>>No, not absolutely. Could someone prove I don't have WMDs stashed >>>>>somewhere in the world? >>>> >>>> >>>>The point is...."You can't 'prove' a negative thing", used as a blanket >>>>rule, is a falsity. For example, it likely cannot be proven that you >>>>aren't a time traveller, but it can be proven that you are not a woman. >>> >>> >>>However, that is not really proving a negative. One can prove the sex >>>of something or the colour or composition of something. The case here >>>is that proving the negative position only requires proof of some >>>other positive and the knowledge that only one state can exist. >>> >>>The issue of "proving a negative" has to do with the existence of a >>>thing, not the state of that thing. >>> >>>G >>> >> >>I'm saying that some people mistakenly transliterate one for the other. >>"You can't prove something doesn't exist" is not the same thing as "you >>can't prove a negative thing", which is what the poster stated. >> >>That said, it is still possible to prove that some things don't exist, >>particularly if their presence is readily observable. That it may not be >>practical to do so is an entirely different matter than whether it is >>possible. > > > Please tell me what you can prove that doesn't exist? > > GK > exist on Earth. You really don't need me to do this exercise for you. -- Joe On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:01:39 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote:
>It is possible to prove that a live bear the size of Argentina does not Please explain just how you would prove that beyond all doubt. I suspect>exist on Earth. You really don't need me to do this exercise for you. ___________________________________________________________ you are falling into the trap of "nobody has reported one, so they don't exist", aren't you? I will concede that there might be a category of proof based on the assumption that if "A" exists, then "B" can not exist. If "B" can be proven to be in existence, then "A" cannot exist. Be careful, however. There are lots of possible gotchas with this kind of "proof". -- BT Bill Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:01:39 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: Not at all...you are apparently not following the discussion. Some > > >>It is possible to prove that a live bear the size of Argentina does not >>exist on Earth. You really don't need me to do this exercise for you. > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Please explain just how you would prove that beyond all doubt. I suspect > you are falling into the trap of "nobody has reported one, so they don't > exist", aren't you? readily observable things can be proven not to exist in a finite space by the lack of presence of the readily observed thing in that space. I also state that, obviously, not all entities can necessarily be proven to not exist, by examination. Most especially those things that cannot be readily observed. In the example above, you would merely need to simultaneously examine a few hundred locations on the Earth to determine that there is not some portion of an extremely large live bear on that spot. Might you concede that you can prove that a DoDo does not live in your back yard? If you can concede that, then scaling up to even larger finite areas is only a matter of resources. Could you muster a few hundred people to prove, by simultaneous physical examination of every square inch, that a DoDo does not exist in your local supermarket? If so, how about a few thousand people along with maybe a billion dollars worth of sophisticated sensing devices to prove that a DoDo does not live on your local golf course? At what point does this process become impossible, in your mind? -- Joe On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:48:54 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote:
>Bill Turner wrote: However you are qualifying that, once you do that you are no longer in>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:01:39 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >>>It is possible to prove that a live bear the size of Argentina does not >>>exist on Earth. You really don't need me to do this exercise for you. the realm of proving a negative. That is no different than saying I can prove you are not female. What you can't prove is this "there is no such thing as a bear the size of argentina" Show quote >> Can you prove that a DoDo does not exist. >> ___________________________________________________________ >> >> Please explain just how you would prove that beyond all doubt. I suspect >> you are falling into the trap of "nobody has reported one, so they don't >> exist", aren't you? > >Not at all...you are apparently not following the discussion. Some >readily observable things can be proven not to exist in a finite space >by the lack of presence of the readily observed thing in that space. > >I also state that, obviously, not all entities can necessarily be proven >to not exist, by examination. Most especially those things that cannot >be readily observed. > >In the example above, you would merely need to simultaneously examine a >few hundred locations on the Earth to determine that there is not some >portion of an extremely large live bear on that spot. > >Might you concede that you can prove that a DoDo does not live in your >back yard? If you can concede that, then scaling up to even larger >finite areas is only a matter of resources. > >Could you muster a few hundred people to prove, by simultaneous physical >examination of every square inch, that a DoDo does not exist in your >local supermarket? If so, how about a few thousand people along with >maybe a billion dollars worth of sophisticated sensing devices to prove >that a DoDo does not live on your local golf course? > >At what point does this process become impossible, in your mind? Can you prove that giant green space giraffes don't exist. Can you prove that an intelligent invisible weightless unicorn doesn't exist. Proving a negative WITH qualifiers is easy. Proving a negative is not. GK grant kinsley wrote:
Show quote > On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:48:54 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: One *can* prove there is no live bear the size of Argentina, and I > > >>Bill Turner wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:01:39 GMT, Joe S <mej***@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>It is possible to prove that a live bear the size of Argentina does not >>>>exist on Earth. You really don't need me to do this exercise for you. > > > However you are qualifying that, once you do that you are no longer in > the realm of proving a negative. That is no different than saying I > can prove you are not female. > > What you can't prove is this "there is no such thing as a bear the > size of argentina" already told you one way. I never claimed that EVERY thing that does not exist could be proven not to exist. I claim that SOME things can, especially if would readily observable. This is all that's required to demonstrate that "you can't prove a negative" is a falsity. At any rate, you aren't even getting into the spirit of this highly OT discussion, so I shall end it here. -- Joe "Bill Turner" <no***@nohow.com> wrote in message Perhaps you cannot prove something does not exist theoretically, but in real news:h3ct419bb7as11egrt6fkleqgugjg11g3h@4ax.com... > Nonsense. You can't 'prove' a negative thing, i.e., you can't prove > something does not exist, such as WMDs. > > -- > BT life we have a different standard of "proof". If there a woody area you live near you might go hunting for bears. After searching through the woods everyday for 20 years you have never encountered a bear and never seen much evidence of them being around. You conclude that there are no bears in those woods. Of course, I guess you could assume that your experience doesn't prove there are no bears and you could go hunting for another 20 years... Again, are you saying we have no grounds to claim that the dodo bird is extinct? On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:14:51 GMT, "Bernie Woodham"
<birnhamw***@insightbb.com> wrote: >Again, are you saying we have no grounds to claim that the dodo bird is It depends on your standard of proof. Several species have been thought>extinct? ___________________________________________________________ extinct and later found not to be. Again I say: One can not absolutely and finally prove something does not exist. -- BT
Show quote
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:35:24 -0500, RichA <n***@none.com> wrote: I have a brother-in-law who uses the "moved them all to Syria" ruse. The >> >>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:19 +1300, "JA" <jasmin***@yahoo.om> wrote: >>> >>>>How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has >>>>weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has >>>>admitted there are none? >>> That's absolutely right. They moved them all to Syria >>>prior to the U.S. invasion. >>> >> >> Suppose for the sake of argument, Rich, that you are correct. Then >> Saddam Hussein had complied with U. S. demands and no longer possessed >> weapons of mass destruction. What possible justification could there >> be for an American attack on his country under those circumstances? problem with this is you had Donald Rumsfield claiming before the war, "We know exactly where they are. They are between Tikrit and Bagdad." Now since the administration knew where they were to begin with, you know, given our satelites and tracking abilites, that we could follow the movement of these through Iraq and into Syria. There is no way Bush would admit the absence of WMDs if he knew they were moved to Syria. So, it just doesn't hold up. Iraq had no WMDs and they were not moved to Syria.  
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
