MSM Bias

[Alan]

All I can say is : what a horrible mess. I hope the US learns their bloody lesson soon and stops interfering where their noses don't belong.

(It's rather ironic, that, throughout this whole mess, Hezbollah has vowed to protect the UN and certain western embassies from the extremist Sunnis, and actually seems to be carrying out these vows by offering armed escourts among other things).

But Iran can

I guess Hizbollah will be protecting them from there fellow "freedom" fighters

6 UNIFIL men killed in south Lebanon

Six United Nations peacekeepers were killed and three others seriously wounded Sunday in a terror attack car bomb explosion on a convoy of UNIFIL's Spanish contingent in southern Lebanon.

Spanish Defense Minister Jose Antonio Alonso said the dead included three Colombians and two Spanish peacekeepers. The three wounded troops were also from Spain, he told reporters in Madrid.

"The most likely cause of this attack was an explosion of a car bomb or device activated by remote control. It [was] a premeditated attack," he said, ruling out the possibility that a land mine caused the blast.

A security official based in southern Lebanon said the explosion was caused by a bomb that was placed on the side of the main road between the towns of Marjayoun and Al-Hiyam, about six kilometers north of Metulla. Israeli defense officials said that terror cells affiliated with al-Qaida - and possibly also responsible for last Sunday's Katyusha attack on Kiryat Shmona - were the prime suspects.

White smoke billowed from one of the armored personnel carriers, which was thrown by the force of the explosion to the side of the road. Fire engines rushed to the area to put out the flames. The IDF offered UNIFIL medical assistance and to have the wounded peacekeepers evacuated to Israeli hospitals.

Sunday's deadly explosion was the first time that UNIFIL has come under attack since it was reinforced last summer after the Second Lebanon War. The 13,000-member UN force from 30 countries, along with 15,000 Lebanese troops, patrols all of southern Lebanon as well as the Blue Line Lebanese-Israeli border.

In a statement on its television station Al-Manar, Hizbullah denounced the attack, calling it a "suspicious act." Lebanese President Emile Lahoud also "strongly denounced" the incident that he said aimed to destabilize Lebanon.

Israeli officials said there have been warnings that peacekeepers would come under attack by terror groups in southern Lebanon, particularly al-Qaida and Global Jihad.

Head of the Research Division at Military Intelligence Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz warned in December of increasing signs that Global Jihad elements were setting up a presence in Lebanon and were planning attacks against UNIFIL. The high-ranking officer said the Global Jihad terror cells posed a direct threat to the multinational force in southern Lebanon and particularly to French, Italian and Spanish soldiers.

"They have been a target for al-Qaida and Global Jihad for a while," a defense official said.

Those warnings became more serious after Fatah al-Islam, the al-Qaida-inspired Palestinian terror group, began fighting Lebanese troops in northern Lebanon five weeks ago. The terrorists have threatened to take their battle outside northern Lebanon and other militant groups have issued Internet statements supporting Fatah al-Islam.

In an interview earlier this month with The Jerusalem Post, UNIFIL Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Claudio Graziano played down the severity of the reports, declaring, however, that precautions were being taken by the peacekeeping force.

"There is increasing danger and we take precautions [as is] routine, but not because of a specific threat," Graziano said.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos Sunday night to express Israel's condolences for the deaths of the five UNIFIL soldiers, and to offer any assistance possible.

A statement put out by the Foreign Ministry said that the details of the incident were not fully known. The statement also said that Moratinos promised that the Spanish contingent would continue to carry out its mission "with determination."

Maybe Hizbollah will stop blowing up Lebonese MPs while their attention is focused on protecting U.N personal

 

[kilo39]

Those warnings became more serious after Fatah al-Islam, the al-Qaida-inspired Palestinian terror group, began fighting Lebanese troops in northern Lebanon five weeks ago. The terrorists have threatened to take their battle outside northern Lebanon and other militant groups have issued Internet statements supporting Fatah al-Islam.

Also from your quote:

In a statement on its television station Al-Manar, Hizbullah denounced the attack, calling it a "suspicious act." Lebanese President Emile Lahoud also "strongly denounced" the incident that he said aimed to destabilize Lebanon.

Oh but lookee here:

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

So in fact Saudi Arabia is financing Fatah al-Islam under sanction of america.

-
The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.”

Nevermind that the same people financed Al-Queda in the beginning (and for all we know [911 anyone?] are still financing them.)

SO. America and Saudi are financing terror groups (and probably planting bombs killing UN observers.) No wonder Hezbollah says it is "suspicious."

Yes, America fermenting war around the world for the enrichment of George and his buddies (while hoping to build a democratic world that resembles china.)

Sickening. But here is alanf TROLL thinking he is Churchill.

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”
-
The U.S. military also has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Iranians in Iraq. “The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can,” a former senior intelligence official said. “They had five hundred locked up at one time. We’re working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.” The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who “get scooped up and released in a short time,” after they have been interrogated.
-
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”
-
Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.
-
Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

The largest of the groups, Asbat al-Ansar, is situated in the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp. Asbat al-Ansar has received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal-security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.
-
Leslie H. Gelb, a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the Administration’s policy was less pro democracy than “pro American national security. The fact is that it would be terribly dangerous if Hezbollah ran Lebanon.” The fall of the Siniora government would be seen, Gelb said, “as a signal in the Middle East of the decline of the United States and the ascendancy of the terrorism threat. And so any change in the distribution of political power in Lebanon has to be opposed by the United States—and we’re justified in helping any non-Shiite parties resist that change. We should say this publicly, instead of talking about democracy.”
-
There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.
-
The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.
-
“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”
-
Senator Ron Wyden, of Oregon, a Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, told me, “The Bush Administration has frequently failed to meet its legal obligation to keep the Intelligence Committee fully and currently informed. Time and again, the answer has been ‘Trust us.’ ” Wyden said, “It is hard for me to trust the Administration.”
The Redirection
by Seymour M. Hersh
March 5, 2007

 

[Xarog]

Yeah all America again . It always leads back to the "easier target" or is it "safe target"

Let's see. America and Israel together spent almost an entire year before the Israel-Lebanon making up warplans to destroy Hezbollah. They failed miserably. Do you really expect either Israel or America to give up?

Why would the Lebanese government support a pro Syrian group?
Why would a pro Syrian group attack a Syrian ally Hizbollah?

Because one is Sunni and the other is Shiite.

Even then why wouldn't elements presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government support groups they believed to be anti Hizbollah after all it's Hizbollah blowing them up

Maybe because they don't believe that Hezbollah was blowing government officials up? And Hezbollah actually forms one of the largest blocs within the lebanese government as well.

 

[Alan]

Let's see. America and Israel together spent almost an entire year before the Israel-Lebanon making up warplans to destroy Hezbollah. They failed miserably. Do you really expect either Israel or America to give up?

Shame if that's a failure poor Hezbollah. Still why would they give guns to a group that was linked with Syria

Because one is Sunni and the other is Shiite

.

Why would they believe that henchmen of Syria's who has actively and violently interfered negatively in Lebanese affairs suddenly change sides

Maybe because they don't believe that Hezbollah was blowing government officials up? And Hezbollah actually forms one of the largest blocs within the lebanese government as well.

So who do you think they believe did it?

 

[kilo39]

So who do you think they believe did it?

Don't you read?

Head of the Research Division at Military Intelligence Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz warned in December of increasing signs that Global Jihad elements were setting up a presence in Lebanon and were planning attacks against UNIFIL. The high-ranking officer said the Global Jihad terror cells posed a direct threat to the multinational force in southern Lebanon and particularly to French, Italian and Spanish soldiers.

"They have been a target for al-Qaida and Global Jihad for a while," a defense official said.

Those warnings became more serious after Fatah al-Islam, the al-Qaida-inspired Palestinian terror group, began fighting Lebanese troops in northern Lebanon five weeks ago. The terrorists have threatened to take their battle outside northern Lebanon and other militant groups have issued Internet statements supporting Fatah al-Islam.

Yes, groups supported by Saudi and America (to ferment anti-muslim sentiment in bush's global war against muslim islamofascists: that they created.)

“The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon.
-
The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood.

 

[Alan]

Don't you read?

Yes, groups supported by Saudi and America (to ferment anti-muslim sentiment in bush's global war against muslim islamofascists: that they created.)

“The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon.
-
The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood.

So it's America helping a Syrian (an adversary of theirs) backed group to attack the Lebanese officials who are "allied" with the Americans. It's not Hizbollah who happens to also meddle in Lebanon and are allied with Syria a foe of America, Lebonese government and Israel who both happen to an American allies.

How "convienent"

 

[kilo39]

So it's America helping a Syrian (an adversary of theirs) backed group to attack the Lebanese officials who are "allied" with the Americans. It's not Hizbollah who happens to also meddle in Lebanon and are allied with Syria a foe of America, Lebonese government and Israel who both happen to an American allies.

I never said it.

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

Oh but you know better.

 

[Xarog]

Shame if that's a failure poor Hezbollah.

Is Hezbollah still alive and kicking? Yes. Did the attempt to destroy them fail? Yes.

Still why would they give guns to a group that was linked with Syria

Who's 'they' here?

Why would they believe that henchmen of Syria's who has actively and violently interfered negatively in Lebanese affairs suddenly change sides

Who said Syria has changed sides?

Assad is a secular ruler if you didn't notice.

So who do you think they believe did it?

Last I heard the investigation was ongoing.

An assassination by Mossad in order to provoke civil war isn't off the table, either, btw.

In fact the UNSC investiations at first thought that the explosion that killed Hariri came from the sewers the car. That line of thought was quickly killed off when it was discovered that an Israeli company was doing work in those very same sewers the week before.

 

[Alan]

I never said it.

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

Oh but you know better.

All I'm asking is why? He says presumably but surely that's the only possible reason why the Lebanese government would "open space for them".

Now why would they trust a Pro Syrian group after all meddling and violence Syria has done?

Hizbollah and this group have the link in Syria. Why would Syria allow two of their "agents" to fight each other and not their objective that is the Lebanese government. Why would the Americans throw their support behind a dodgy group with far reaching chance that they'll turn. Backing the Lebanese government is a far safer bet for them and the Israelis who don't need another extremist group on their border even if there was a slim chance they would fight each other because in the end one would win and they'll be back at square one

 

[Darknet]

which are now shelling the crap out of the palesitinian areas where these foreign Sunnis took root.

These areas were controlled by the Lebanese. The residents were sealed off from the rest of the country werent they.

 

[Xarog]

Now why would they trust a Pro Syrian group after all meddling and violence Syria has done?

Read carefully. Fatah al Islam splintered from the pro-Syrian parent group. That means that they may well not feel positively about Syria at all.

Furthermore it doesn't say that Syria supports this group in return. So far there's nothing to suggest that Syria approves of what has transpired.

Hizbollah and this group have the link in Syria. Why would Syria allow two of their "agents" to fight each other and not their objective that is the Lebanese government.

See above.

Why would the Americans throw their support behind a dodgy group with far reaching chance that they'll turn.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They gambled that the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other so much that they'd start fighting each other a la Iraq. Their gamble failed, and that's when the funding was cut.

Backing the Lebanese government is a far safer bet for them and the Israelis who don't need another extremist group on their border even if there was a slim chance they would fight each other because in the end one would win and they'll be back at square one

But the Lebanese government cannot take Hezbollah on. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese Army is in no shape to fight Hezbollah. Hence the need for someone else to come in and do the dirty work.

 

[Xarog]

These areas were controlled by the Lebanese. The residents were sealed off from the rest of the country werent they.

If you mean the Palestinians were not permitted to live anywhere else, then you're correct.

If you mean that no one could enter these places then you're wrong.

 

[Alan]

Read carefully. Fatah al Islam splintered from the pro-Syrian parent group. That means that they may well not feel positively about Syria at all.

Furthermore it doesn't say that Syria supports this group in return. So far there's nothing to suggest that Syria approves of what has transpired.

See above.

Yeah splinter not broke away or did a 180 turn. The likelyhood of them still having the same or similar objective as Syria is a lot higher.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They gambled that the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other so much that they'd start fighting each other a la Iraq. Their gamble failed, and that's when the funding was cut.

This is not Iraq. There is a small factor that Israel on the border. Israel being a uniting factor between both Sunni and Shiah extremists. Nevermind Isreal allowing another extremist group to get support to the north of them.

Although in Iraq who is America supporting? Not the Sunnis or the Shiah

But the Lebanese government cannot take Hezbollah on. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese Army is in no shape to fight Hezbollah. Hence the need for someone else to come in and do the dirty work.

Well knowing the likelyhood of failure of the "plan" the weakness of the Lebanese army is all the more reason not to take this chance. It's bad enough puting up with Hizbollah and they don't need Sunni extremists on top of that.

 

[Xarog]

Yeah splinter not broke away or did a 180 turn. The likelyhood of them still having the same or similar objective as Syria is a lot higher.

'Broke away' is exactly the right definition. If one group splinters off from another, it means they didn't like something the parent group was doing.

This is not Iraq.

Indeed.

There is a small factor that Israel on the border. Israel being a uniting factor between both Sunni and Shiah extremists. Nevermind Isreal allowing another extremist group to get support to the north of them.

Yup. America gambled that the Sunnis would hate Hezbollah more than the Israelis. They lost.

But you not should forget that Lebanon has been on the verge of civil warfare more than a few times, and if civil war did erupt, it would be along sectarian lines.

Well knowing the likelyhood of failure of the "plan" the weakness of the Lebanese army is all the more reason not to take this chance. It's bad enough puting up with Hizbollah and they don't need Sunni extremists on top of that.

I guess America felt the benefits outweighed the risks.

 

[Alan]

WOW

Gary Sinise is a great actor that've I've always enjoyed watching( Forest Gump and Apollo 13) but now I have a much greater respect for the man

Actor Gary Sinise: Positive Support for Iraq

HIRSEN: Did the events of 9/11 change your view of the world?


SINISE: Yes, I think so. It definitely woke me up. I started doing a lot more looking into what was going on. I wanted to know why this happened. I knew that our military was going to start getting fairly active, and I wanted to do something, I wanted to help out. I felt, like a lot of people, very vulnerable in this country, having felt for so many years so secure. And all of a sudden to be attacked on our shores like that was a real slap in the face and a wake-up. I just felt like, well, we're a country at war now, and I wanted to be able to do something to help.


HIRSEN: You use the term "wake-up" to describe the change in attitude that 9/11 created. Why do you think 9/11 didn't change so many other folks in the media and in Hollywood?


SINISE: Well, I don't know anybody who wasn't affected by it; certainly at the time everyone was affected by it. I think there are some people that got more active in terms of volunteerism and feeling like life is much more precious than they had ever thought before and having a feeling of wanting to make the most out of it. That's what happened to me. I'm sure it happened to other people as well. And I'm sure there are many people who went back to sleep, or "it's business as usual," and that's unfortunate because I think the world changed that day. We've all heard that said. I just really believe it.


HIRSEN: What is your view of the way the media are portraying the military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan?


SINISE: It's interesting. I did an interview recently, and after the interview was over I got into a conversation with the journalist who was interviewing me who had been to Iraq as an embedded reporter; you know, fairly supportive of the media. I got into questioning why there seemed to be such an imbalance of reporting coming out of Iraq, and not just an imbalance but an omission or a confusion as to what is really going on and what is the whole truth of what is happening in Iraq, because I get a lot of other types of reports from Iraq that I never get from the media.


I'm in touch with dozens of military service members over there who are working quite diligently on their mission, accomplishing positive things, making progress, and who have a dedication and belief that what they are doing is helping, and therefore their morale is high. Yet in so many media reports we get a completely opposite view of what's happening with our military service members, that they are demoralized or broken or their morale is low and whatnot.

Granted, there probably are service members over there who don't have as high morale as somebody else might. There are a lot of people over there, and they're not going to all feel the same thing. But there's an overwhelming sense from a lot of the people that I deal with who are working cooperatively with the Iraqis on a day-to-day basis. They are making progress, and they're accomplishing positive things. Therefore they feel good about their mission, and some people who have gone would go back again.



I've talked to several people who were back here, who said, "Well, if they want me to go back, I'll go back." That doesn't sound like somebody who's angry about having gone to war, and what they did. ... A lot of people make general statements, big, sweeping, general statements. "The morale is down." That's a big, sweeping, general statement that lumps 150,000 people all into the same boat. "The Army is broken" or "The mission is not going well."


Well, there are day-to-day missions all over that country that are being accomplished by our service members, so it's not one single thing going on. There are people all over the country working with all kinds of things and doing all sorts of projects, combat related and civil affairs related, so there are many stories coming out of Iraq.


HIRSEN: What was it that you told the journalist?


SINISE: My point to this journalist [was] that I was disturbed at the media's willingness ... to go after the military regarding the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. It seemed like they could not put enough of those pictures on television enough times. We saw dozens and dozens and dozens of pictures daily, for two, three weeks, [showing] the lack of integrity of our military.


He [the journalist] said to me: "You know what, I don't care. I think we should put those pictures on every day and all the time, and I have no problem with that."


I said: "I can't disagree with you that it was a horrible misstep by a bunch of dufusses in our military, about 15 of them. But on the other hand I would say, where is the other side of the story? Why, if you're going to be so aggressive with depicting American troops in a negative manner, why not be just as aggressive to show the heroism of our service members?"


I brought up dozens of examples. There's a woman, a major, who is like a superwoman over there, helping kids and delivering kerosene lamps and pulling Iraqis out from under trucks and saving people and doing all these things. You never hear about that kind of stuff. Yet it seems like they can't wait to put bad news on.

I said, "You tell me. Why do we see one side of the story and not the other if there are two sides?" He paused, and then he said, "Well, bad news sells" – and that's all he could say.


HIRSEN: The media will respond somewhat flippantly that bad news is a hallmark of human nature. Do you find that response surprising considering this is a time of war?


SINISE: It seems like every day you could get a new piece of information that could throw you a curve. Personally, I believe that we are in a war, and I think there may be a fundamental difference with people that have varying degrees of conviction about who the enemy is, what the enemy's intentions are, whether we are actually in a war or not, who brought the war on, us or them. And there are always differing opinions about that.


Some people might not actually view this as a war. It's not like, the armada is coming; we can see it on the horizon; let's load the guns and defend the coastline. We can't do that anymore. There is an ideology out there that we have identified, that is threatening and requires response. Certainly we know that. But we're not fighting any particular country. We're fighting, basically, al-Qaida in Iraq now, and former Baathists of the Saddam Hussein regime.


There are a lot of people who didn't believe we should go to Iraq in the first place, so they're not going to view it as a war. And if they view it as a war, they view it as an illegal war, and they're not going to support it; therefore, they're not going to support the military members who are fighting it.

Personally, I believe that we are in a war. We are a country that's vulnerable. We saw that on Sept. 11.


There's no question in my mind that, given the opportunity to put a nuke in a suitcase, there are millions of people, not thousands but millions, who would dedicate themselves to detonating that nuke in one of our cities. I have no doubt in my mind. I saw it on Sept. 11. If they could have killed 300,000 instead of 3,000, they would have been all the happier about that. There's no question in my mind that that is a reality and that it has to be; that we will need our service members for many years to come and that we want to support them.


We're going to need these volunteers. That's why I get out there and support them. I believe there is an enemy and that the service members that we have are our defenders.


HIRSEN: You talk to servicemen and women regularly. Have they indicated that they're affected by the coverage of the war by the media?


SINISE: I have had some people mention it in terms of why don't they show any of the positive things that we're doing over here. I had one guy who delivered school supplies. That day they had a huge celebration in the village. It was a very cooperative day for everybody, and that to him was a big story. That was his story for the day. Instead he got back to the base and turned on the news and it was more of the same negative stuff.


It is big news every time bombs go off, and it's big news when our guys get hurt or killed. Those stories deserve to be told. But they [soldiers] might have been killed on a day when they had just accomplished some huge things and helped out a lot of people, and they would, I am sure, like that story to be told as well.

Cont.. here http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=82179

Puts scum like 'Hanoi" Jane to shame

 

[kilo39]

Puts scum like 'Hanoi" Jane to shame

Would you have the guts to say that to her face? Probably not. Look to yourself.

 

[Alan]

Would you have the guts to say that to her face? Probably not. Look to yourself.

You know me better than that. Of course I would. I tell it how I see it don't I

 

[chiskop]

Puts scum like 'Hanoi" Jane to shame

You keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a hippy, but you seem to be stuck in the sixties yourself.

 

[Xarog]

Sometimes I wonder who indoctrinated Alan.

 

[Xarog]

Not the T.V obviously

Who on the other hand indoctrinated you is prehaps not so hard to figure out. Your "I'd rather live in Iran than the U.S" statement cleared that up

I wasn't indoctrinated, period.

And you can take that statment out of context all you like, it only besmirches your own reputation.

But the fact of the matter remains that you argue like an old man, using terms like 'hippie', which haven't seen common use for the last 30 years, as well as fixating on certain events, such as ww2 and churchill's role in it... And let's not forget the constant bemoaning of people with issues against "middle aged white christian men" or whatever it is....

At a guess I'd say it was daddy dearest who 'instructed' you in your political views.