Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (39472)	4/14/2004 7:47:39 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Yup, it never occurred to the terrorists in Falluja to use human shields or to wipe out a few locals that never did side with Saddam or the local thugs. Nope, these murderers, thugs, terrorists, etc., are all 100% honest, altruistic & abide by all conventions of the terrorists creed. There is no way they were involved in the civilian casualties. No possible way at all. And of course, US troops today continue to act precisely how John Kerry described them to the US Senate in 1971..... ....<these> war crimes committed in <iraq, are> not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.... ...they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside.... Ya! That's the ticket!

To: Rambi who wrote (39472)	4/14/2004 7:49:51 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Rambi, The problem is that the Arab media is notoriously inaccurate, and that is putting it mildly. Good grief, I recall the destruction of the mosque, the millions of dead at Jenin, and any number of other exaggerations. So, yes, we should listen to opinions, but so many from the ME are based on fantasy. It's one of their basic problems. I have no desire to hear endless drivel about how the evil Joooos, apes and pigs every last one of them, are the source of their problems; how it's martyrdom instead of murder to have children blow themselves up so that innocent civilians are killed; how women are inferior; how Americans are faking 9/11, etc. Take a look at some of this crazy stuff: adl.org memri.org memri.org I have no use for those opinions. They're insane. And that, unfortunately, is what constitutes much of what is being expressed in the ME. The thoughtful voices are being drowned out. I wonder sometimes why we bother. It must be the oil.

To: Rambi who wrote (39472)	4/14/2004 7:56:38 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793914

And I really believe we need to listen to these opposing opinions, for they EXIST. We can't ignore them. We can't pretend that their claims are bogus, that they are a minority. This is how they interpret what we say and do. Some people think that the best way to save American lives is for us all to understand all aspects of the enemy and the war zone environment so we can advance better strategies and perform better. Other people think that the best way to save American lives is to publish information that affirms our strategies and performance, aka the truth, because publishing various perspectives gives comfort to the enemy and compromises our leader at home. (I'm practicing "musical mocassins" here. I'll probably end up barefoot and on my behind.) Or at the very least, if our press insists on publishing other POVs, aka propaganda, they should clearly and explicitly distinguish between those data that are true from those that are enemy propaganda. (Note the dichotomy.) It seems to me that one can reasonably argue either side as the best approach for saving the most American lives given that there's no way of measuring which approach is better. Some folks likely look at it that principled way. Other people may frame it that way but have ulterior motives or at least additional motives, partisan in nature. I don't see how we can know, when a person advocates one approach or the other, whether that person is actually focused on saving lives or wholly or in part using it as cover for partisan interests. Personally, I subscribe to candor and openness as a way of life for a variety or reasons, but then I'm probably not the best person to run a war. And now I will grab some snacks and join you in decadent entertainment.