[Ghoser777]

The Blotter

I read a bunch of the comments, and I'm not one to jump on the whole "you're unpatriotic/traitor" bandwagon, but that news story seems weird. First, what sources in the CIA or white house would leak that information (not that it's shocking, but still)? Second, based on the current relationship between the U.S. and Iran, shouldn't the ABC exec's double check with the white house on whether they could run with the story? What the news should report in terms of foreign relations always is dicey in my head - you don't want the media to just be a puppet of the government and support everything they do, but they shouldn't undermine it either. So odd...

[OldManMac]

No, they shouldn't check with the White House to see if they can run the story. The free press is supposed to be exactly that; a free press. If they have what they believe to be reliable sources, then they're actually obligated to tell it. One of the functions of the fourth estate is to serve as a balance against usurpation of power, and, IMO, too much of the current media is nothing but a shill for the executive branch (read Bush). This administration's unilaterism needs to be exposed more often, and dissent is patriotic.

[Helmling]

I agree. Free press is free press. If the U.S. is up to dirty tricks in Iran AGAIN, then the public deserves to know. It's all this sort of nonsense that made us the Great Satan in Iran's eyes. When we're complaining about what a wacko regime Iran is, we should see the clear chain of dominoes from what we did putting the Shah in power. We helped topple a democratic government back in the 50's because its leadership dared to suggest that Iran should get to keep some significant portion of its oil profits. Obviously that had to stop and so we put the Shah in power. Well, what a frickin' surprise, the Shah was hated and spawned the revolution that brought these Islamo-facists to power.

Now we want to go "black" ops and destabilize the Islamo-facists? Yeah, sure, why not? It's not like that could have any unintended consequences, right? I mean, if they're bad, then removing them couldn't possibly cause any problems? It's not like there's an unfolding situation that demonstrates clearly to any idiot paying attention what kind of a mess could arise from a power-vacuum?

Honestly, the U.S. needs to stop these shameful tactics. We should deal with Iran--and all countries--on the level.

[Matius]

KarlG and Helmling...you two don't have a fcuking clue. If this is even true, whoever leaked it needs to reserve a room in prison. And if it is true, the US is justified anyway since Iran seems to have no problems sending their people to Iraq to assist insurgents in killing our troops. But something tells me that doesn't matter to a lot of people on this forum, including the two of you.

[OldManMac]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? You're probably one of those people who think democracy only means what you want it to mean. It's not I who doesn't have a clue.

[macintologist]

Ron Paul is right, the American-backed coup of 1953 which overturned the Iranian democratically elected leader, created resentment and anger in that country towards the United States which created (or enabled) the forces that took over our embassy and took hostages. The more we meddle in their affairs, the more they hate us. We should be talking with Iran, and negotiating with them and trading with them, not aggitating an already shaky relationship.

[Super Mario]

You can't talk to Iran. Getting cosy cosy sends out the wrong signal to other regimes. Iran proved they are incapable of honest dialogue when they kidnapped those British navy officers and manipulated the media. They prove it all the time whenever they use the media to accuse America of every problem while it is Iran who is sending death squads to kill Iraqis and Coalition forces.

That article on ABC was manipulative and as legit as a Mac rumor article. Read the last few paragraphs and you will notice big problems with it. It is another example of how people who don't like Bush would love to see more chaos around the world just so they can laugh at the president. They forget the US is a democracy and this is his last term. Maybe they would rather see a socialist dictator who is all cosy cosy with every murdering theocracy and oppressive regime in the world. I'd like to see how free the press will be then.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

Second, based on the current relationship between the U.S. and Iran, shouldn't the ABC exec's double check with the white house on whether they could run with the story? What the news should report in terms of foreign relations always is dicey in my head - you don't want the media to just be a puppet of the government and support everything they do, but they shouldn't undermine it either.

Is that a serious question?

Has it really come that far in your country that you really have no idea what this "Freedom™" thing is you purport to be bombing into other nations?

Holy ****.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Matius 

KarlG and Helmling...you two don't have a fcuking clue. If this is even true, whoever leaked it needs to reserve a room in prison.

Apropos fcuking clue: That is not a problem of the press. The press report what info they get; it's their job, and in fact, their duty in a free society.

If the person who leaked info to the press broke the law in doing so, that is *his* problem.

[Cipher13]

Wow. Just wow.

No wonder we are where we are right now.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

The Blotter

I read a bunch of the comments, and I'm not one to jump on the whole "you're unpatriotic/traitor" bandwagon, but that news story seems weird. First, what sources in the CIA or white house would leak that information (not that it's shocking, but still)? Second, based on the current relationship between the U.S. and Iran, shouldn't the ABC exec's double check with the white house on whether they could run with the story? What the news should report in terms of foreign relations always is dicey in my head - you don't want the media to just be a puppet of the government and support everything they do, but they shouldn't undermine it either. So odd...

That the US-government authorised the CIA to conduct an anti-iran-covert-action aimed at destabilising the iranian regime through financial and economical means, is not shocking or even a surprise at all.

What is surprising is the amount of commentators on that abc-page, that condemn abc, and denounce them as traitors, for reporting about the "secret".

LOL, those have to be the most funny comments I 've ever read, one loon after the next screams "treason"!

What these morons all so easily forget is that there were officials from the government that deliberately leaked the info to abc.

The question that should be analysed is why does some part of the US-government want this to be leaked?

The best answer I can come up with is that there must be a quarrel within the government on how to tackle Iran. One side must be suggesting to use economic, financial and secret covert operations to destabilise Iran enough in order to coerce it to follow US-demands, ie. to stop the enrichment-program and the help for Iraq's and Lebanon's shia-militias. The other side of the quarrel must be suggesting a direct military stand-off in the line of regime-change like in Iraq.

And both sides try to get the attention of the US-president, who ultimately decides which way to go.

That latter group then would have obviously leaked the secret information, in order to weaken the viability of the plan of the other group, and escpescially in order to undermine any US-Iran-relations in time for the coming regional middle-east-conference.

Taliesin

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

What these morons all so easily forget is that there were officials from the government that deliberately leaked the info to abc.

That's hardly the biggest thing wrong with those people.

Don't you think the fact that people are criticising the "free press" is the biggest issue? Do these people really think that whatever the US Gvt does is truly their own business, and nobody elses? Are you/they already so enslaved by your government? So unquestioning?

Faith like that is a disease.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

That's hardly the biggest thing wrong with those people.

Don't you think the fact that people are criticising the "free press" is the biggest issue? Do these people really think that whatever the US Gvt does is truly their own business, and nobody elses? Are you/they already so enslaved by your government? So unquestioning?

Faith like that is a disease.

We have too many terminaly ill in this country, who don't understand what a democracy is. They feel so threatened by anyone else's opinion, they don't see the irony in shutting that opinion off.

[Dork.]

The press should think twice about reporting some things during a time of conflict -- like troop locations and strength information that the opposing forces normally wouldn't have that put troops in direct danger. This information is not that sensitive, it's so general as to be worthless tactically to the opposition. I don't think anyone is suprised that the U.S. is doing these types of covert operations. I wouldn't be suprised if we were conducting these in France ahead of their election!

The only worth it might have to Iran is to drive propaganda, and I think they would be able to do that quite well whether or not word of this particular program was in the press.

Heck, when I read this the only thing I was suprised about was the "non-lethal" part. I count the fact that the President didn't authorize the use of Any Force Necessary in Iran as some measure of progress!

(America! F*** yeah!)

[tie]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You can't talk to Iran. Getting cosy cosy sends out the wrong signal to other regimes.

Conducting peaceful diplomacy sends out the wrong signal? Is the only way of resolving our agreements then to bomb them? What kind of a signal does that send?

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Is that a serious question?

Has it really come that far in your country that you really have no idea what this "Freedom™" thing is you purport to be bombing into other nations?

It was a serious question - it's not as if the U.S. is made up of people who have the same view or understanding of a topic. I don't think anyone expects the press to print anything and everything - could you image a headline on fox news listing the access codes to U.S. nuclear weapons? Just because there's information doesn't mean it should be printed. Then again, just because we have a conflict doesn't mean that the actions of the government should be sealed. It's a delicate balance between having freedom of the press and protection of national security interests.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by tie 

Conducting peaceful diplomacy sends out the wrong signal?

Don't know if you noticed but Iran has dodged all peaceful diplomacy for years. How do you speak to a regime that uses the same language as the Nazis when describing Jews, or says Israel should be wiped off the earth, denies the holocaust, believes in the coming end of the world, sends martyrs and agents to stir up trouble in Iraq, and very possibly had Iraqi Shi'ites create the WMD story so that the West would remove Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein? Saddam's last words before he was hung were a condemnation of "Persians".

Peaceful diplomacy? We tried that so many times with too many dictators to no good end. We have been negotiating peaceably via the UN to make sure Iran isn't creating a nuclear bomb. It has been harder to deal with Iran than North Korea.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Don't know if you noticed but Iran has dodged all peaceful diplomacy for years. How do you speak to a regime that ... sends martyrs and agents to stir up trouble in Iraq, and very possibly had Iraqi Shi'ites create the WMD story so that the West would remove Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein?

You must be joking. Iran is trying to stir up trouble in Iraq so we shouldn't talk to them? Iran wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power, so, boo hoo, we should give them the silent treatment? (Didn't we also want him gone, or have I entered another Bush/Cheney reality warp?)

We're the ones who started this dumb war, and we are the ones responsible for it. It's ludicrous to accuse Iran of being incapable of diplomacy because of a war that we started based on fictions from our own leadership, and which has now killed hundreds of thousands of people. Ahmadinejad is surely out of touch with reality, but so are Bush and Cheney; and Bush's delusions have so far been a lot more destructive. Right now, we're the ones who look incapable of diplomacy to the rest of the world.

Peaceful diplomacy? We tried that so many times with too many dictators to no good end.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Diplomacy has certainly led to good ends. See Syria, the recent somewhat-promising developments in North Korea, Iraq before we launched this ridiculous war, ... In other cases, it hasn't worked at all -- but it is mad to condemn peaceful diplomacy so broadly.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by tie 

You must be joking. Iran is trying to stir up trouble in Iraq so we shouldn't talk to them? Iran wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power, so, boo hoo, we should give them the silent treatment? (Didn't we also want him gone, or have I entered another Bush/Cheney reality warp?)

In case you have a hard time reading I'll say it again, we have been trying diplomacy via the UN for five years now. Read the news today for the latest.

We're the ones who started this dumb war and we are the ones responsible for it.

Oh. Of course, the US is responsible for 1400 years of Islamic militancy, and 2500 years of Persian imperialism.

It's ludicrous to accuse Iran of being incapable of diplomacy because of a war that we started based on fictions from our own leadership

The fictions you speak of were started by the Iraqi National Congress, a predominantly Shi'ite group who lived in exile.

and which has now killed hundreds of thousands of people.

That number is grotesquely over the top. And the majority of deaths have been caused by criminals and terrorists, not as collateral damage but as direct attacks against civilians and security forces.

Ahmadinejad is surely out of touch with reality, but so are Bush and Cheney and Bush's delusions have so far been a lot more destructive.

Bush's foreign policy in Iraq, and especially towards Iran, is dictated to him by the Saudis. They do not want to see an enlarged Iranian power (one of the wars within Islam between Sunnis and Shias is control of Mecca and Medina), which was going to happen once Saddam's regime imploded on its own. It has been pointed out by other careful observers that civil war in Iraq was inevitable. Once it happened Iran would have entered the arena. Turkey, with its million man army, would not hesitate to enter Iraq if Iran moved its military forces. Iraqis would have been screaming for American help in such a case.

So what is better? All out war between Iran and Turkey in Iraq? Or preventative containment of violence by a western coalition?

Politics is not an easy game. It's not like going to San Francisco with a flower in your hair. If you think it is so easy to go and talk and discuss with the Iranian regime you need a lot of reality check. We let Hitler invade Poland, France, North Africa and carry out massive genocide because we wanted to sit and talk with him. Want a repeat of that level of murder?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

It was a serious question - it's not as if the U.S. is made up of people who have the same view or understanding of a topic. I don't think anyone expects the press to print anything and everything - could you image a headline on fox news listing the access codes to U.S. nuclear weapons? Just because there's information doesn't mean it should be printed.

I would DAMN WELL expect a decent news reporter to show those access codes, pixeled out of course, if somebody were to leak them.

Are you telling me you believe that if somebody in the government were to leak the nuclear access codes, the press shouldn't report on that?


If the government is THAT stupid, they MUST be exposed by the press. If they are attempting to squander what minute remnants of credibility the nation might still have on the international stage by attempting to usurp - AGAIN - the government of Iran, then DAMN, does the U.S. population ever NEED to know that!

A free press able to report on ANYTHING of political significance without fear of repercussion is one of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy. You people taught us that. It appears you've since forgotten, yourself.



Apart from that - what makes you think this wasn't a deliberate plant to increase pressure on Iran?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

A free press able to report on ANYTHING of political significance without fear of repercussion is one of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy.

A fundamental cornerstone of defending one's democracy should also be to confirm one's sources before reporting a story that could destabilise the world, possibly give false information to an undemocratic regime such as Iran, and in turn threaten democracy and freedom.

Apart from that - what makes you think this wasn't a deliberate plant to increase pressure on Iran?

Or a plant by Iranian agents to make the US look like it is doing something in Iran that it might not be, the result of which is to cause further division in the West between government and civilians and create sympathy for Iran.

I always like to remind people how chess came from Iran.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

So what is better? All out war between Iran and Turkey in Iraq? Or preventative containment of violence by a western coalition?

Politics is not an easy game. It's not like going to San Francisco with a flower in your hair. If you think it is so easy to go and talk and discuss with the Iranian regime you need a lot of reality check. We let Hitler invade Poland, France, North Africa and carry out massive genocide because we wanted to sit and talk with him. Want a repeat of that level of murder?

The situation wouldn't be what it is if the United States hadn't completely dropped their pants before Iran. You felled their democratically elected government and instated a tyrannical regime, publicly ostracized the new Ayatollah government when the Shah was finally thrown out by the people, while secretly DEALING with the Ayatollahs in the hostage crisis to ensure Reagan's election, continued to publicly shun the country while selling them arms at ridiculously high prices, under-running your own embargo - WHO THE HELL WOULD EXPECT ANY U.S.-LED DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO STILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY ANY IRANIAN GOVERNMENT?


But as for the past six years, the Bush administration has a killer argument: We wouldn't want another Hitler, now, would we?

Hooray for jingoism - it sure helped in Iraq, didn't it.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The situation wouldn't be what it is if the United States hadn't completely dropped their pants before Iran. You felled their democratically elected government and instated a tyrannical regime, publicly ostracized the new Ayatollah government when the Shah was finally thrown out by the people, while secretly DEALING with the Ayatollahs in the hostage crisis to ensure Reagan's election, continued to publicly shun the country while selling them arms at ridiculously high prices, under-running your own embargo - WHO THE HELL WOULD EXPECT ANY U.S.-LED DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO STILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?

Your simplistic black and white version of history doesn't work out.

The CIA had not installed a tyrannical regime. The Shah was very welcomed by Iran and had done a lot of work modernising the country. He was doing for Iran what Kamal Ataturk had done for Turkey by bringing it up to modern times. Many Iranian exiles, millions of whom live in California, fondly remember how Iran was become the equal of any modern country in the world at the time. He gave women equal rights. He allowed free speech against religion. He allowed a free flow of cash in and out of Iran. Tyrannical?

The Shah however got a little hard with his power against the religious orthodoxy and was warned by the CIA to practise moderation. It was too late though because the Ayatollah Khomeni in exile had already stoked the hearts of Islamic clerics who were scaring Iranians who went to worship every Friday, but instead of prayers all they heard were stories of doom and gloom, how Iran was going to become a den of sin and that they would be punished in the fires of hell, etc etc

You speak of freedom a lot but continually fall for a mythological version of history that paints religionists as heroes of freedom and democracy. Go to California and see how well the Iranian and Armenian community are doing. All of them left when the Ayatollah returned to power. They are an extremely well educated cultured, moral and wealthy people. Such is there success that the district of North Hollywood is officially renamed Little Armenia. They're doing a lot better than those who supported the Ayatollah and rewrote the books to make the Shah look like the devil.

Iran could have been glorious by now.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

The CIA had not installed a tyrannical regime. The Shah was very welcomed by Iran and had done a lot of work modernising the country. He was doing for Iran what Kamal Ataturk had done for Turkey by bringing it up to modern times. Many Iranian exiles, millions of whom live in California, fondly remember how Iran was become the equal of any modern country in the world at the time. He gave women equal rights. He allowed free speech against religion. He allowed a free flow of cash in and out of Iran. Tyrannical?

The Shah however got a little hard with his power against the religious orthodoxy and was warned by the CIA to practise moderation. It was too late though because the Ayatollah Khomeni in exile had already stoked the hearts of Islamic clerics who were scaring Iranians who went to worship every Friday, but instead of prayers all they heard were stories of doom and gloom, how Iran was going to become a den of sin and that they would be punished in the fires of hell, etc etc

You speak of freedom a lot but continually fall for a mythological version of history that paints religionists as heroes of freedom and democracy. Go to California and see how well the Iranian and Armenian community are doing. All of them left when the Ayatollah returned to power. They are an extremely well educated cultured, moral and wealthy people. Such is there success that the district of North Hollywood is officially renamed Little Armenia. They're doing a lot better than those who supported the Ayatollah and rewrote the books to make the Shah look like the devil.

Iran could have been glorious by now.

None of that has the slightest bit to do with the point I was making. In fact, your entire response is COMPLETELY based upon a SINGLE adjective in my post.


Allow me to rephrase my post, then, to make it less confusing to you:


The situation wouldn't be what it is if the United States hadn't completely dropped their pants before Iran. You felled their democratically elected government and instated a new government, publicly ostracized the new Ayatollah government when the Shah was thrown out, while secretly DEALING with the Ayatollahs in the hostage crisis to ensure Reagan's election, continued to publicly shun the country while selling them arms at ridiculously high prices, under-running your own embargo - WHO THE HELL WOULD EXPECT ANY U.S.-LED DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO STILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY ANY IRANIAN GOVERNMENT?


But as for the past six years, the Bush administration has a killer argument: We wouldn't want another Hitler, now, would we?

Hooray for jingoism - it sure helped in Iraq, didn't it.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

At least you changed " You felled their democratically elected government and instated a tyrannical regime" to "You felled their democratically elected government and instated a new government"

[analogika]

I also removed the "finally", FYI.

I take it you completely agree with what I was saying, now?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I also removed the "finally", FYI.

I take it you completely agree with what I was saying, now?

I don't know what you're saying to be frank

[Big Mac]

We may disagree on PPC v. Intel, but in this thread we're in agreement, Ghost.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

It was a serious question - it's not as if the U.S. is made up of people who have the same view or understanding of a topic. I don't think anyone expects the press to print anything and everything - could you image a headline on fox news listing the access codes to U.S. nuclear weapons? Just because there's information doesn't mean it should be printed. Then again, just because we have a conflict doesn't mean that the actions of the government should be sealed. It's a delicate balance between having freedom of the press and protection of national security interests.

But it's nearly obvious that part of the US-government wanted this information, that Iran definitely knew about well before the leak, to be published for whatever reasons , which can be speculated about:

I think it is part of an infight in the current administration on how to handle Iran.

It's also possible that the story was leaked in order to disturb possible US-Iran-relation during the coming middle-east-conference.

Taliesin

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Take a close look at the article and note the shoddy and very suspect journalism.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

Nameless American intelligence sources. Nameless Pakistani officials.

A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

A report broadcast on a nameless Iranian TV channel that went unnoticed by even the most open media outlets such as the BBC who report everything.

A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundu. The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.

A nameless Pakistani official.

Hell anyone could put together a sensationalist piece like that just to take a dig at the Bush administration and not give a **** about the overall consequences.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Take a close look at the article and note the shoddy and very suspect journalism.

I agree, if this is legit and really is that important for the world (and the enemy) to know, then name names. Always hiding behind nothing but unnamed sources who can basically make any anonymous claim, for any reason, is bunk.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I agree, if this is legit and really is that important for the world (and the enemy) to know, then name names. Always hiding behind nothing but unnamed sources who can basically make any anonymous claim, for any reason, is bunk.

Nixon,anyone, anyone, anyone, anyone...? (teacher from the movie "Ferris Bueller's day off".)

Taliesin

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Nixon,anyone, anyone, anyone, anyone...? (teacher from the movie "Ferris Bueller's day off".)

Taliesin

...nothing to do with foreign policy, covert operations, national security, or Ben Stein.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And by the way, I personally think the whole thing is probably a plant. These days, I've got to believe that if you want to conduct virtually any covert operation -that you want to stay just that- you've got to toss a bone out to the "reveal all!" media to keep them (and the enemy) spinning madly over your decoy, while you get underway with whatever it was you were really planning in the first place.

[Super Mario]

The truth comes out. The story was planted to ABC by either Pakistanis or Iranians.

The plan was too plant the story in the western media and then wait a few days before making the accouncement that 'intelligence networks' have been caught in Iran. This allows Iran another propaganda coup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6695653.stm

As with the ABC story, Iran's announcement is devoid of any details.

The White House's response is "Grow up".

Shame on ABC for being the only news outlet to be totally suckered by the plant.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You can't talk to Iran.

Looks like we're going to try anyway, thankfully.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18899216/

[macintologist]

We should establish formal diplomatic and trade relations with Iran. This is silly.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

We should establish formal diplomatic and trade relations with Iran. This is silly.

If they stop funding death squads, arming militants, holding hostages, threatening death to several nations, saying Jews should be drowned in the sea, and stifling free expression and free speech, then all things are possible. Otherwise trading with people like that sends the wrong signal to any tinpot leadership around the world. It's the same as confirming that anyone can behave like that and be rewarded for it.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

If they stop funding death squads, arming militants, holding hostages, threatening death to several nations, saying Jews should be drowned in the sea, and stifling free expression and free speech, then all things are possible. Otherwise trading with people like that sends the wrong signal to any tinpot leadership around the world. It's the same as confirming that anyone can behave like that and be rewarded for it.

Funny thing is some of our so-called "allies" do just that. We should establish diplomacy with every nation, except for those that declare war on us.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

If they stop funding death squads, arming militants, holding hostages, threatening death to several nations, saying Jews should be drowned in the sea, and stifling free expression and free speech, then all things are possible. Otherwise trading with people like that sends the wrong signal to any tinpot leadership around the world. It's the same as confirming that anyone can behave like that and be rewarded for it.

In other words, many of the same things the U. S. does.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

In other words, many of the same things the U. S. does.

Would you like to back that up or do you work for one of those middle eastern TV stations that spread lies, hate and racism all day?

Show Americans entering embassies and taking hostages and threatening to blow the embassy up unless criminals are released from prison.
Show the American government say that any race did not suffer genocide.
Show the American government say that any race should be exterminated off the planet.
Show the American government force the media what they can or can't say.
Show the American government fund masked death squads that target civilians and civil government.
Show the American government insist that another nation must convert religion.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Would you like to back that up or do you work for one of those middle eastern TV stations that spread lies, hate and racism all day?

If you really are a "media ghost writer", as you claimed in that other sad thread, you've GOT to be working either for Fox or for something of complete irrelevance.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

If you really are a "media ghost writer", as you claimed in that other thread you owned me in, you've GOT to be working either for Fox or for something of complete irrelevance.

I owned you already so I'll own you again.

Me write for Fox News? Hardly. They don't accept atheists do they?

Here's just a small sample of the lies, hate, superstition and racism that is on mainstream Arabian television.

YouTube - Saudi Professor Calls for "Positive Hatred" of Christians
YouTube - Saudi Author Expresses His Opinion About Westerners
YouTube - Arabs brainwashed little girls to hate Jews
YouTube - UAE Professor Says Jews in One Place for Easy Killing
YouTube - He pulled WHAT out of her?
YouTube - Egyptian Sheik: "Muslims Must Confront Non-Muslims"
YouTube - Saudi Cleric: Educating Jihad & World Conquest - Not Enough
YouTube - Palestinian-Kuwaiti Sheik about Heavenly Rewards for Martyrs
YouTube - Palestinian Cleric "Explains" the "Jewish Nature"
YouTube - Jewish Conspiracy in a Saudi TV Show
YouTube - Palestinian Sheik: "Islam Will Rule U.S/U.K, Jews Are AIDS"
YouTube - Muslim Scientist: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca- Center World
YouTube - Iranian Children Show Brainwashes Kids for Death Admiration
YouTube - Risks of Female Masturbation According to Islamic Teachings
YouTube - Yemenite Sheik Claims to Have Found the Cure for AIDS
YouTube - An Islamic Dr. in London Justifies Slaughtering

The Nazi Youth were drilled the same way. It's one of the ironies of modern times, Muslims using technology invented by infidels to make infidels look intellectually inferior.

Let's see what your defence is or you'll turn and run as you usually do until it blows over.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

I owned you already so I'll own you again

In that other thread?






Hardly.


And in this case, I'm just not going to bother pulling up a slew of Jerry Falwell and Westboro Baptist videos from YouTube. For further questions, feel free to search this forum for Buckaroo's posts.


BTW: Nice post there. Puerile crap and an ad-hom. I noticed you turned and ran from that other thread. Waiting for it to blow over?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And in this case, I'm just not going to bother pulling up a slew of Jerry Falwell and Westboro Baptist videos from YouTube. For further questions, feel free to search this forum for Buckaroo's posts.

So you've got no answer. And who said Falwell etc are exempt from any criticisms I have? I'm an atheist. I'll take on your Islamist ideology (you don't fool me) and any Christian snakeoil salesman.

Waiting for it to blow over?

No I got tired, as I am now, of your lack of clarity. You can't phrase questions correctly, you're manipulative, you're dishonest, you snip out parts of comments that you can't answer, and you won't be clear on what position you take on any issues.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

So you've got no answer. And who said Falwell etc are exempt from any criticisms I have? I'm an atheist.

Point taken.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

I'll take on your Islamist ideology (you don't fool me)

I already have, apparently.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

No I got tired, as I am now, of your lack of clarity. You can't phrase questions correctly, you're manipulative, you snip out parts of comments that you can't answer, and you won't be clear on what position you take on any issues.

Yo, yo, check it out:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...3/#post3390775

Which question did you not understand?

And which aspect of my stance in that thread do you consider ambiguous?

I even did you the favor of posting it twice, after you could only respond to the first one with an ad-hom dissection.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And which aspect of my stance in that thread do you consider ambiguous?

Your whole stance is ambiguous. You do a lot of jibing, pathetic attempts to make people look bad, you lie, you manipulate (snipping my comments to make it look like I said Americans invented democracy put an end to any real discussion between you and me), and you always dodge questions. Ironic that you accuse me of dodging your poorly worded attempt at a question.

[analogika]

You're right. Why should I "carry on attacking the poster that has made the most important contribution to MacNN in the whole of history?"

You made an idiotic statement, in complete earnestness, about the importance of your nation.

That was the initial premise.

Anyway, this is getting off topic, and your delusions of grandeur in the other thread speak for themselves.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You made an idiotic statement, in complete earnestness, about the importance of your nation.

And you made the idiotic statement (out of many idiotic statements you made such as the Romans never having democracy) that for a person to salute American innovation and contributions to the world's economy, unparalleled by any other nation or culture in history, that they must be an American to do so. I'm a Scot living in Dublin.

You also made the gross error of harassing me whenever I pointed out atrocious Islamist behaviour by levelling charges at me that I'm a Christian who watches Fox News. I'm an atheist who has briefly or accidentally had Fox on once.

Further examples of your lack of debating skills can be seen just a few posts above this one with your poor attempt to ridicule me when I pointed out that Arabic TV networks frequently spread lies, hate and racism. Your attempt at ridicule was followed by me showing many examples of what can be seen on Arabian TV. You have no answer for that except to continue your personal attacks.