Music Banter
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   I am an uneducated American who supports the war for no good reason (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/29864-i-am-uneducated-american-who-supports-war-no-good-reason.html)

Zombeels 04-20-2008 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator (Post 471883)
An editorial with no citations.
Did you see who it was written by. The top CIA analyst during the Iran-Iraq war.
My third link was supposed to be this one.
Quote:
immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned.
There is more information out there.
WPONAC: Iran's Chemical Weapon Program

Now I'm not saying who is responsible. I'm just saying you had the guy that you say was responsible but charges were dropped and he was conveniently killed before it was brought to trial.

boo boo 04-20-2008 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels (Post 469603)
There is some speculation as to whether or not Bin Laden is responsible for the 911 attacks. Even the FBI hasn't officially charged him.
Yeah, I guess outright f*cking admitting to doing it is not enough for some people.

I mean you could say that since radical Islamists celebrated 9/11 Bin Ladin just wanted to take credit for it, but thats just too damn stupid to believe. Thats practically begging someone to come after you even though you didn't do anything.

You're not one of those 9/11 Truth dopes are you?

Predator 04-20-2008 07:59 PM
Its off topic, yet still relevant.
A pretty long and interesting read. Maybe something that should be considered before choosing what sources to listen to when forming an opinion.
World Tribune.com -- Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

tkpb938 04-20-2008 09:05 PM
Great article, and very true. Deaths related to the war pale in comparison to things like obesity and heart disease in the US yet somehow the war gets more negative attention... So frustrating.

sleepy jack 04-20-2008 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkpb938 (Post 472009)
Great article, and very true. Deaths related to the war pale in comparison to things like obesity and heart disease in the US yet somehow the war gets more negative attention... So frustrating.
hahahahahahah gee I wonder why

boo boo 04-20-2008 09:19 PM
The way you guys downplay the war is just hillarious. :laughing:

So yeah, thousands of people are dead because we f*cked up, but hey its not so bad, at least more people die from heart disease.

Yeah I'm sorry but I have no idea what the freaking point is you're trying to make, we started a war and based the reason for it on 2 things, one is proven to be a lie (Iraqs ties with Al Qaeda and 9/11) and the other is yet to be proven (WMDs), thats hardly justification for the deaths of what is now in excess of 1.2 million Iraqis and over 4000 Americans, as well as many more wounded. Trying to downplay that is pretty offensive to me.

The media has filled people with a lot of lies, but a lot of that is from the rights perspective, not the left. FoxNews are clearly biased toward the right and MSNBC is moving increasingly closer to the right as well. And even though CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS are all said to be biased towards the left, they do their fair share of GOP approved scaremongering as well.

boo boo 04-20-2008 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikiwikiwhat?? (Post 472019)
What a joke. The media has a right wing bias? Are you kidding? For every postive Iraq War-related story, there are a thousand more trying to convince you it has been nothing but a failure. Most news organizations won't even report good news.
:laughing:

Oh boy.

For one, thats not the media talking, thats the majority of the American public, the people who actually support the war are a minority, some outlets actually let that be known well whoopdy f*cking do, some left wing bias for telling the truth eh?

But you certainly wouldn't know that its a minority if you watch FoxNews, who have spread more lies about the war than anyone else, its also very ironic that the news network that is most supportive of the war is also the news network that covers it the least.

Quote:
I've yet to hear Keith Olbermann concede that the surge worked.
Because it hasn't.

Quote:
Instead he says ridiculous things like: "Well, there has been a decline in violence, but the surge is a total failure because the Iraqi government is still shockingly inept and political progress is not being made"
Theres still a sh*tload of violence there, I'd hardly call that a success because it decreased some. Its still one hell of a quagmire that we created, something Cheney knew would happen long before we even started the war.

Its normal for violence to decrease in a war that has gone on for so long anyway. Having less troops = less troops dead. Not hard to do the math.

Quote:
The surge was instituted to quell violence. It did, it still is. It is/was successful.
.......ClashWho?

Quote:
The war gets negative publicity because it's trendy to hate George Bush, and its trendy to be a pacifist. Basically it's trendy to be an idealistic, unrealistic moron.
Wow, you're a real Rush Limbaugh. :rolleyes:

EDIT: So who deleted it? Ethan?

sleepy jack 04-20-2008 09:54 PM
It's bill, but I'll leave your owning for the world to see. The funniest thing about it is two weeks ago he was running around saying the opposite. So yeah speaking of trend-hopping...

Predator 04-20-2008 09:58 PM
I have never tried to downplay any of it. A war is a terrible thing. Every life lost causes tears. I support this war for the reasons I have already stated. Every Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman over there is my brother or sister. I have had the honor of standing next to them through good and bad. I have cried for American service members I have never met and, sadly, never will. When I talk to them, the vast majority know they are doing the right thing, yet their lives are used as a statistic against the cause they believe in.

The point I want to make with my last post is that the stories we get to see on the news do not always show the entire truth. Its easy to believe that all soldiers are doing bad things when the media won't show the good. Of course the good outweighs the bad but we never get to see it. Then again this off topic, so whatever.

boo boo 04-20-2008 10:10 PM
I don't think we're being disrespectul to the troops by opposing the war, they did die for this country and deserve our respect, but I believe they were mislead and that they died because of lies. We shouldn't let more people die for a war with no just cause.

Predator 04-20-2008 10:16 PM
If this had been quick and easy, the country would not be as opposed as they are now. To bad MOUT isn't quick or easy. Read toward the end of the article I posted last and you can gain a better understanding of an expected time line.
Most people who oppose the war are not disrespecting the troops. However, I have seen protests in Portland with stuffed soldiers being beaten. I have seen protests saying that soldiers are murderers. Every time a soldier sees a sign saying they are wrong, their morale lowers.

EDIT:
I am not saying that opposing the war means that you oppose the the troops. It is a matter of how you choose to show your opposition to the war. Of course, if you choose to oppose the troops, that is also your choice.

boo boo 04-20-2008 11:25 PM
I support our troops, and I think now we should support them by getting them the hell out of Iraq.

sleepy jack 04-21-2008 04:58 PM
Okay re-opened.

Predator 04-21-2008 07:07 PM
I wish I was a fat fucktard with nothing better to do than stalk and spam a music forum. Ruining a perfectly good debate with general jackassness. Go do something productive like shoving a fork in your eye.

boo boo 04-21-2008 07:52 PM
Man. This guy was relentless. :laughing:

Zombeels 04-21-2008 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 471954)
Yeah, I guess outright f*cking admitting to doing it is not enough for some people.

I mean you could say that since radical Islamists celebrated 9/11 Bin Ladin just wanted to take credit for it, but thats just too damn stupid to believe. Thats practically begging someone to come after you even though you didn't do anything.

You're not one of those 9/11 Truth dopes are you?
Everything I stated was the truth.

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Even the FBI page doesn't list the attacksof 911
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden

Predator 04-21-2008 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels (Post 472352)
Everything I stated was the truth.

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Even the FBI page doesn't list the attacksof 911
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden
I'm sorry to continue beating a dead horse about citations, but I really can't let it go. I've spent to much of my time reading and writing research papers to simply ignore the fact that citations in to many articles are either worthless or completely missing. Citing your references is what draws the line between opinion and reputable information. If someone writes an article and isn't willing to provide the reader with information to confirm their statements, it may as well be listed as an opinion piece. I've seen articles with no references, some with references that do not support the opinion in the article and even articles about articles citing the article in question as the only reference when that one has no references.
I'd just like to ask that when posting links to articles to back up your statements, can we at least make sure they are reputable sources and not simply someone else that supports your opinion?

EDIT:

Adding information from another opinion piece found in the Washington Post.

Quote:
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
Here is a link to the entire article. Its pretty much the flipside to your link.

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

Zombeels 04-22-2008 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator (Post 472365)
I'm sorry to continue beating a dead horse about citations, but I really can't let it go. I've spent to much of my time reading and writing research papers to simply ignore the fact that citations in to many articles are either worthless or completely missing. Citing your references is what draws the line between opinion and reputable information. If someone writes an article and isn't willing to provide the reader with information to confirm their statements, it may as well be listed as an opinion piece. I've seen articles with no references, some with references that do not support the opinion in the article and even articles about articles citing the article in question as the only reference when that one has no references.
I'd just like to ask that when posting links to articles to back up your statements, can we at least make sure they are reputable sources and not simply someone else that supports your opinion?

EDIT:

Adding information from another opinion piece found in the Washington Post.



Here is a link to the entire article. Its pretty much the flipside to your link.

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
My piece does have citations. The person who wrote the piece talked to the FBI investigator himself and even quoted him. I'm pretty sure the piece would have been deleted by now if the FBI spokesman knew he was quoted in an article and he did not say those things. Things like:
Quote:
“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Yes everything that Paul Sheridan says is opinion and speculation but what is quoted is fact.

Predator 04-22-2008 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels (Post 472419)
My piece does have citations. The person who wrote the piece talked to the FBI investigator himself and even quoted him. I'm pretty sure the piece would have been deleted by now if the FBI spokesman knew he was quoted in an article and he did not say those things. Things like:
The citations in your last posted article are a link to Bin Ladens most wanted poster, and 3 news articles talking about the video in question. These things do not even support the point he wants to make.
Perhaps the FBI spokesman said those things, along with other information. It is pretty easy to take a few blurbs and make it appear to say what you want. Did you realize that the quote I posted was from the same source?

Here it is again.

Quote:
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

The Unfan 04-22-2008 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator (Post 472423)
It is pretty easy to take a few blurbs and make it appear to say what you want. Did you realize that the quote I posted was from the same source?
This works both ways. You'd need to find a non-bias way to string together the line of thought in said quotes to make any progress on this point.

However, I do find it interesting that he said "There is a logic to it." and then doesn't really expand on that much. That logic could be pretty much anything.

Predator 04-22-2008 02:20 PM
that is true. the . . . means that there is more to the quote that isn't included. i did make sure to say that i quoted an opinion piece.

Zombeels 04-22-2008 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator (Post 472423)
The citations in your last posted article are a link to Bin Ladens most wanted poster, and 3 news articles talking about the video in question. These things do not even support the point he wants to make.
Perhaps the FBI spokesman said those things, along with other information. It is pretty easy to take a few blurbs and make it appear to say what you want. Did you realize that the quote I posted was from the same source?

Here it is again.
This article refers to a response to boo boo and not the video or articles by Stephen Pelletiere. Also related to the "no hard evidence against Bin Laden" claim is the authenticity of the "confession video" of Bin Laden dated December 13, 2001. Not to say that I'm looking for the "conspiracy theory" angle to the whole 911 story. I'm just trying to find answers.
Government refuses to authenticate bin Laden "confession video"

bsmix 04-23-2008 02:54 PM
haha army people. Your first post is about stuff that happened before the first war we had there. Should we have handled it differently? We are not leaving until iraq is completely liberated?? WE are not completely liberated. Reading your arguments I wonder if you would support war with North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China? where do u draw the line? If I was in the army and didn't support the war I would feel really weird....that would be tough. stay safe

mr. goth glam 04-23-2008 09:05 PM
How did Bill Hicks put it?

In favor of the war, against the troops.

I just can't stand all those young people.

tkpb938 04-23-2008 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SATCHMO (Post 469642)
" I have a very unpopular opinion in that I am for the war, but against the troops"
- Bill Hicks
Satchmo beat you to it.

bsmix 04-24-2008 12:10 AM
If the south changes sides you know somethins up


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:32 PM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.