Attack on U.S. Base in Iraq Leaves 24 Dead - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 12-22-2004, 10:02 AM

my theory about this, rekna, is that the folk who support the war, and who continue to believe that there was some linkage between saddam hussein an "international terrorism" do so in part because the terminology used seems to reinforce the linkage between the war in iraq and terrorism---if you hear the words juxtaposed enough, as you take in "reality" through television, it is entirely possible that the words used to frame imagery will come to function as necessary. because they "explain" what you are seeing, which is of course a tightly controlled version of what is happening.

so marketing then.
you call it a resistance movement and you engender a seperation between the war and its presumed justifications, which in turn might have looped more people back onto the series of falsehoods floated by the administration to justify it, which would in turn probably have lost bush the last election.

host · 12-22-2004, 10:46 AM

<h4>(An aside to thread participants who form their opinions based on the "facts",.....no amount of persuasion will influence those of the pro-Bush pro-war mindset that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were, at the least, deadly and wasteful, tactical deadends and costly mistakes, and at most, criminal acts. It may take the deaths of 58,000 American troops, (that is what it took to wake up the pro-war faction 30+ years ago......)
other peoples' kids.....to wake up Bush's delusional supporters, but the facts ain't gonna do it......)</h4>
They have refused to accept the determination of U.S. and U.N. weapons
inspectors that there no WMD found in Iraq that legitimized statements made
by Bush and his appointees making a case for an invasion of Iraq on grounds
that Saddam posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States.

They have refused to accept the determination by the 9/11 commission and
of former CIA director George Tenent that no reliable intelligence exists to
legitimize the claim that Saddam was a supporter of and a conspirator with al queda.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html</a>
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

They have refused to accept that the insurgents fighting against U.S. troops
in Iraq are nearly all Iraqis, or that Bush's claim that we are fighting them
"there" so that we won't have to fight them "here", has no basis in fact.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm</a>
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1501802&postcount=5">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1501802&postcount=5</a>
But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.

"The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are local and not foreign fighters," said Captain Ben Connable, the intelligence deputy for the US 1st Marine Division, in charge of the western al-Anbar province.

They ignore the fact that senior Bush administration officials Powell and
Rice made public statements before 9/11 that directly contradicted the
Bushco post 9/11 propaganda attempt to justify invading Iraq:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose.<h4> That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq,</h4> and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

Quote:

<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<h4>
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.</h4>

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."

Mobo123 · 12-22-2004, 11:35 PM

[QUOTE=host]<h4>(An aside to thread participants who form their opinions based on the "facts",.....no amount of persuasion will influence those of the pro-Bush pro-war mindset that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were, at the least, deadly and wasteful, tactical deadends and costly mistakes, and at most, criminal acts. It may take the deaths of 58,000 American troops, (that is what it took to wake up the pro-war faction 30+ years ago......)
other peoples' kids.....to wake up Bush's delusional supporters, but the facts ain't gonna do it......)</h4>

Personally, i dont think this should be an "aside". That is the bottom line. Never has this country been so polarized by bush lovers and bush haters. As you said, facts dont matter.

One of my favorite expressions is this: Dont bother me with the facts, i know what i know.

I just pray to God that this wrong headed war doesnt cost Americans the loss of 57,000 men and women before cheney finally figures out it isnt worth it.

Seaver · 12-23-2004, 12:21 AM

Quote:

I hope one day you see the world through my eyes as well, I wish all Americans would

Yeah.. America would suddenly become a much happier place (ignorance is bliss afterall).

Look, the reason they are called "insurgents" and not minutemen is because Iraqis themeselves refuse to believe another Iraqi would target civilians who are simply trying to buy a meal for that day with a car bomb.

They call their own "minutemen" and "patriots" insurgents, it didnt just start because Bush wanted something easy to call them.

stevo · 12-23-2004, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Insuts? Did I somehow insult you Stevo?

No, but I never said you insulted me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

This recent tragic event would have never occurred if Bushie wasn’t a war mongering, selfish, arrogant, greedy, money grubbing, lying religious nut job. In the end, the "terrorists" you mention are no different then Bush. Both murder in the name of God.

look like insults to me.

tecoyah · 12-23-2004, 04:47 AM

I do so hope....the rebuttal is civil

Lebell · 12-23-2004, 09:06 AM

Facts are definitely in the eye of the beholder when it comes to politics.

matthew330 · 12-23-2004, 09:32 AM

Looks like it's time for one of Mesphisto's quotes of the day:
"It's easier to persuade a thousand people with emotion, than one person with reason" - Ron Smith,WBAL (well that's where i heard it anyway)

Rdr4evr · 12-23-2004, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Yeah.. America would suddenly become a much happier place (ignorance is bliss afterall).

You got it backwards. Most Americans are already ignorant regarding the situation in Iraq and the "war on terra" in general. It is those who believe we are actually there to stop terrorism and bring the Iraqi people, who are in dire need of help from the Americans, liberation and peace.

You see, since Bush is relatable with most of the American public, they would believe anything that comes out of his mouth, as well as all the bias non-sense that comes out of the mouth of the media.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, until it back-fires, which in time, it will.

Quote:

Facts are definitely in the eye of the beholder when it comes to politics.

That seems about right.

12-22-2004, 10:02 AM	#41 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	my theory about this, rekna, is that the folk who support the war, and who continue to believe that there was some linkage between saddam hussein an "international terrorism" do so in part because the terminology used seems to reinforce the linkage between the war in iraq and terrorism---if you hear the words juxtaposed enough, as you take in "reality" through television, it is entirely possible that the words used to frame imagery will come to function as necessary. because they "explain" what you are seeing, which is of course a tightly controlled version of what is happening. so marketing then. you call it a resistance movement and you engender a seperation between the war and its presumed justifications, which in turn might have looped more people back onto the series of falsehoods floated by the administration to justify it, which would in turn probably have lost bush the last election. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-23-2004, 04:47 AM	#46 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Watches the next reply I do so hope....the rebuttal is civil __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

12-23-2004, 09:06 AM	#47 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Facts are definitely in the eye of the beholder when it comes to politics. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-22-2004, 11:35 PM	#43 (permalink)
Mobo123 Insane	[QUOTE=host]<h4>(An aside to thread participants who form their opinions based on the "facts",.....no amount of persuasion will influence those of the pro-Bush pro-war mindset that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were, at the least, deadly and wasteful, tactical deadends and costly mistakes, and at most, criminal acts. It may take the deaths of 58,000 American troops, (that is what it took to wake up the pro-war faction 30+ years ago......) other peoples' kids.....to wake up Bush's delusional supporters, but the facts ain't gonna do it......)</h4> Personally, i dont think this should be an "aside". That is the bottom line. Never has this country been so polarized by bush lovers and bush haters. As you said, facts dont matter. One of my favorite expressions is this: Dont bother me with the facts, i know what i know. I just pray to God that this wrong headed war doesnt cost Americans the loss of 57,000 men and women before cheney finally figures out it isnt worth it.

12-23-2004, 09:32 AM	#48 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Looks like it's time for one of Mesphisto's quotes of the day: "It's easier to persuade a thousand people with emotion, than one person with reason" - Ron Smith,WBAL (well that's where i heard it anyway)