if they stop now a lot of iraqis will be killed and there families killed after they've been seen openly saying they hate saddam and tearing down his pictures... even though many don't like the war they said they wanted saddam gone... he will have them killed...
War is hell. If there was a plausible way in which differences could be redressed without resorting to an all-ot armed conflict, I would be behind it 100%. But as that cannot be, war seems to be the only way of getting rid of Saddam and freeing the Iraqis. Before anyone accuses me of buying into American propaganda, keep in mind that I have considered both sides of the argument and am comfortable with where I stand. I enjoy my freedoms as a citizen of New Zealand. I believe the Iraqis and Kurds deserve those kinds freedom too.
It is enivitable that people will get caught in the crossfire and killed but, as chronickiwi states, more will be killed each year that Saddam Hussein remains in power. 30,000 Iraqis/Kurds a month since the first Gulf War have already died as a result of his policies. The Collateral damage of the American invasion, albeit tragic, would pale in comparison. The USA isn't an angel, but it is clearly the lesser of the two evils at the moment.
and which two sides is that? The major views about not being at war apply to fictitious reasons for invading in the first place. You have one set of lies and then another set of lies designed to counter these lies, but not in such a way that you will end up disagreeing with the coalition.
I'm not talking about conspiracy, I'm talking about commonsense. Stop listening to mainstream media - do you think that ad for TV3 news that goes on about taking in both sides of the argument had anything to do with that being the actual case? Of course not - b/c it stopped that question from being asked again. I think the world could benefit from a little bit of media studies 101 - even if only to get the ball rolling and some independent thought in circulation. If i hear "freeing the Iraqis" one more time I think I'm gonna throw up. Innocent people, poor people are dying, and it's not for anything as vital or precious as their freedom.
All I can recommend is that you do what John Pilger recommended to Kim Hill when she started talking like Bush's PA - "Just read.....read."
// Before anyone accuses me of buying into American propaganda,
// keep in mind that I have considered both sides of the argument
// and am comfortable with where I stand.
But, uh, SoldierBoy, didn't you say that...
// Al-Jezeera is a joke
...and that...
// I find CNN, BBC and the like to be quite biased against America
So, um, you consider the news sources that most media observers reckon to be biased in favour of the 'coalition' side to actually have a bias in favour of Iraq, and the main arabic news source to be not even worth your while. Just how long did you consider, and how much did you read before you became 'comfortable with where you stand.'
And what news sources do you consider worth reading, SoldierBoy?
something had riled Pilger up, for sure. Kim's like that anyway, so it was always going to get testy once they started sniping at each other. he was patronising, she was belligerent -- not a good combo.
but when kim sent his book skittering across her desk with a backhanded swipe! classic!
Kim Hill was NOT playing Devil's Advocate - if you had recorded it like me you would have the benefit of repeated viewings.
Also - John Pilger reacted angrily because he expected Kim Hill (being from NZ which has an anti-war stance) to be more enlightened and ask the kind of questions that would turn heads...instead of stomachs.
<< it's hard to believe she wasn't taking the Devil's Advocate role for any other reason than to keep Pilger (a man who's probably used to interviews where he's essentially given a platform to state his viewpoint without debate) on his toes.>>
Well, you're assuming that other country's journalists would risk letting John Pilger say most of the things he truly feels/thinks. An American or British show could well face censorship or a forced resignation, like that CNN Kiwi-born guy was. Independent thought - naughty,naughty.
Kim Hill smirks and grimaces her way through interviews because she has her finger on the pulse of other media, instead of on the pulse of the world. The first is an interpretation designed to perpetuate American twisted and contradictory ideology and the other is the neglected facts and truths that keep getting swept under the carpet.
Kim Hill had the opportunity to enlighten many viewers in New Zealand, but instead she chose to challenge John b/c his stance and opinions made Kim nervous about her own differing but factually unsound ones. She also, being one of the most arrogant people I have ever had the displeasure of seeing in action, tried to take the opportunity to selfishly challenge him as her ego simply couldn't resist having a dig. However, to my great pleasure John, faced the more pressing fact that innocent people are being slaughtered (yes Saddam's being doing it too - but, how was that any worse?) and she shouldn't be wasting his time. He burned her and her questions quickly decended into farce. Her statement at the end - "I'll see you next week...I hope", was her only concession that she is a total fuck-up, but for someone so self-involved, it bordered on a confession.
It's too frustrating to argue about what I saw as an obvious waste of time by Kim Hill and the tragic loss of a great stage on which to open some eyes. I'll just have to agree to disagree. Devil's advocate? Liberal? Come on - Liberal is a state of mind too surely - she's a stuffy, cynical bitch - not a liberal. Anyway if she WAS liberal, she could have skipped DA altogether and just chatted with the guy - I don't buy it.
You can't just accuse Kim of wasting time. Pilger was being an arsehole with the way he handled some of the questions. To reiterate Limegreen's example...
Hill: How would you describe the activities of the United Nations up until this point?
Pilger: Which area of the United Nations? It's a very big organisation.
I mean, what sort of answer is that? She's thrown him a big bone, he can take his pick of what he wants to talk about with regards to the role of the UN in the Iraq conflict, and he's just getting petty.
// Well, you're assuming that other country's journalists would risk letting
// John Pilger say most of the things he truly feels/thinks.
Well, yes, at the moment one suspects he would be rather unpopular on the US/UK chat-show circuit. I was thinking more about his overall experience as an interview subject though, when he's probably been part of many more John Campbell-esqu nod-fests than Kim Hill-like finger-wagging-sessions.
//Kim Hill had the opportunity to enlighten many viewers in New Zealand
John Pilger also had the the opportunity to enlighten many viewers in New Zealand. However, as Noizy reiterates, he chose to argue the question and not the point.
//Kim Hill smirks and grimaces her way through interviews because she has her finger on the pulse of other media, instead of on the pulse of the world. The first is an interpretation designed to perpetuate American twisted and contradictory ideology and the other is the neglected facts and truths that keep getting swept under the carpet.
That's a big call. Although I'm not sure even if the latter half were true, that it causes her smirks and grimaces. What do you base that on? Did you learn that in Media Studies 101?
//a stuffy, cynical bitch - not a liberal.
a think it is possible to be all of the above. Cynicism is probably an advantage if you are a liberal. It sounds to me more like you have a pet hate of Kim Hill than an argument.
I saw it a couple of times, and I thought it was a pretty standard Kim Hill approach (she did, however, lose the rag a bit as Pilger started dissing her statements, uh, questions).
I can't recall which paper I read it in, but in an article that was published a day or two after, I think she claimed she was going to give Pilger a hard time, but that's what her job entailed. I suspect Pilger took this to be something of a challenge, and from there it was all downhill.
// John Pilger reacted angrily because he expected Kim Hill ... to be more enlightened
Well, it would've been a bit dull if it had turned into a John Pilger love-fest a al Campbell/Chomsky post-September 11. Or maybe not.
Kimmy'd be one of the most liberal-lefty peaceniks working in NZ media today -- it's hard to believe she wasn't taking the Devil's Advocate role for any other reason than to keep Pilger (a man who's probably used to interviews where he's essentially given a platform to state his viewpoint without debate) on his toes. Pity it turned to custard. I wonder how Campbell would go with him. Or, ahahaha, Holmes.
I haven't had the pleasure of viewing it a couple of times, but went off to do some research after your rebuke. I didn't manage to find a full transcript of it, but from the parts that I did see written down it does look rather like they were both being rather contrary.
I do still think she was playing DA. As Noizy pointed out, she's hardly a conservative.
Take this:
Hill: All this time, then, the United Nations and weapons inspectors have been some kind of puppets of the US.
Pilger: Are you saying that?
Hill: I am asking you whether that is what you are implying?
Pilger: That's a leading question, I wouldn't ...
Hill: How would you describe the activities of the United Nations up until this point?
Pilger: Which area of the United Nations? It's a very big organisation.
It seems to me that Hill's question ought to be a platform for Pilger to disagree, or at least make a statement, but Pilger is being contrary.
Or rather, I have an argument that results in a pet hate of her.
The question about the UN WAS loaded b/c it inferred that they were useless (was heading that way) and John was growing tired of her angle - which frankly was conservative and pro=American (not explicitly, but implicitly, which is far more dangerous. I think my dislike of Kim Hill gives me more perspective, not less.
//So, um, you consider the news sources that most media observers reckon to be biased in favour of the 'coalition' side to actually have a bias in favour of Iraq, and the main arabic news source to be not even worth your while. Just how long did you consider, and how much did you read before you became 'comfortable with where you stand.'
And what news sources do you consider worth reading, SoldierBoy?
Well, I have Sky, so I watch CNN, Sky News, MSNBC and BBC. I also watch One Network news and 3 news in the evening. I read the Herald. I don't agree with everything the agencies say, but I'm able to make up my mind from watching them. And I've read some articles from Al Jazeera over the past few days too, just for interest's sake. I even went so far as to access Indymedia the other day (shudder) yesterday evening. There, enough?
And which "media experts" are the ones you mention?
//The question about the UN WAS loaded b/c it inferred that they were useless (was heading that way) and John was growing tired of her angle - which frankly was conservative and pro=American (not explicitly, but implicitly, which is far more dangerous.
I asked earlier whether you recognised Devil's Adocate, and by my estimation you still don't. That was a complete patsy lob. She said something that was would have been unbelievably easy for him to disagree with and outline why.
I understand what Devil's advocate means - for the last time believe me on this. She was trying to expose the UN's lack of bite and power so that she could put John's anti-American spotlight under strain. This underlying motive was what brought the interview eventually into disrepute. Not every Kiwi (journalist or otherwise) is balanced and playing "devil's advocate" every time they offer up something different. Just have a look at some of the vitriolic letters to the editor in the Herald which are decidedly pro-war........like Kim Hill's words, there are many similarities between the language and its connotations.
Yeah, that's cool -- I didn't mean my question to come across as aggressively as it seemed in print: I was just interested in what sources you were looking at.
// And which "media experts" are the ones you mention?
I assume you mean the bit where I say:
"...media observers reckon to be biased..."
'Observers', that is, not necessarily 'experts' -- they just happened to get published by newspapers, magazines and 'reputable' websites. It doesn't take long to find a few articles from a range of sources (western, muslim and other) that talk of the mainstream western media's bias to the US/UK official line...
Solution to war Iraq overthrow saddam hussein via use of underground resistance groups, America and britain, get the fuck outta iraq, before more people are killed, Bush is another KY.
Interesting to see that allegedly the coalition of the willing is brutalising independent journalists (ie, those not accredited and attached to coalition forces).
If it's true, that fucking appalling
I'd heard they were going to break our will first. Quite an insidious campaign based around high fat takeaways and terrible coffee from multi-national corporations.
heheh. just realised that is a little ambiguous. although it gets me wondering a) why certain people here go to a certain cafe, and b) whether certain others would avoid it....
It already has. The government and I got together and decided that the best line of attack would be to first infiltrate the forums... I'm very insidious, you know.
(please please note the obvious sarcasm. Ever since that whole election imbroglio, the government and I aren't speaking.)
"...it was wrong for him to discuss personal observations and opinions in that interview."
Ey? I'm always amazed when the home of 'Free Speech' clamps down hard on people just voicing their opinions. Seems to be a bit of this going on in the US at the moment. velocity, have you got an 'End the War Now' t-shirt you can wear to the local mall ready to go yet? Or is that just asking for trouble?
I think given the circumstances - particularly while the coalition still holds out for a local uprising - an American telling Iraqi TV that the coalition isn't doing very well may not have been a prudent move.
Ahaha. yes. He did admit as much later. Still, it's no worse than what 95% of the pundits were spouting over the last couple of days in the western media. He wouldn't have got the sack for saying the same thing in an interview with say, just for the sake of mental imagery, Anita McNaught on BBC.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
if they stop now a lot of iraqis will ...
if they stop now a lot of iraqis will be killed and there families killed after they've been seen openly saying they hate saddam and tearing down his pictures... even though many don't like the war they said they wanted saddam gone... he will have them killed...
yes yes yes... iraqis will die if the ...
yes yes yes... iraqis will die if the war continues too...
either way they will die, even if the war never happened they still would have been dying, its just a crap situation to live in.
War is hell. If there was a plausible ...
War is hell. If there was a plausible way in which differences could be redressed without resorting to an all-ot armed conflict, I would be behind it 100%. But as that cannot be, war seems to be the only way of getting rid of Saddam and freeing the Iraqis. Before anyone accuses me of buying into American propaganda, keep in mind that I have considered both sides of the argument and am comfortable with where I stand. I enjoy my freedoms as a citizen of New Zealand. I believe the Iraqis and Kurds deserve those kinds freedom too.
It is enivitable that people will get caught in the crossfire and killed but, as chronickiwi states, more will be killed each year that Saddam Hussein remains in power. 30,000 Iraqis/Kurds a month since the first Gulf War have already died as a result of his policies. The Collateral damage of the American invasion, albeit tragic, would pale in comparison. The USA isn't an angel, but it is clearly the lesser of the two evils at the moment.
<<both sides of the story>> and ...
<
and which two sides is that? The major views about not being at war apply to fictitious reasons for invading in the first place. You have one set of lies and then another set of lies designed to counter these lies, but not in such a way that you will end up disagreeing with the coalition.
I'm not talking about conspiracy, I'm talking about commonsense. Stop listening to mainstream media - do you think that ad for TV3 news that goes on about taking in both sides of the argument had anything to do with that being the actual case? Of course not - b/c it stopped that question from being asked again. I think the world could benefit from a little bit of media studies 101 - even if only to get the ball rolling and some independent thought in circulation. If i hear "freeing the Iraqis" one more time I think I'm gonna throw up. Innocent people, poor people are dying, and it's not for anything as vital or precious as their freedom.
All I can recommend is that you do what John Pilger recommended to Kim Hill when she started talking like Bush's PA - "Just read.....read."
// Before anyone accuses me of buying ...
// Before anyone accuses me of buying into American propaganda,
// keep in mind that I have considered both sides of the argument
// and am comfortable with where I stand.
But, uh, SoldierBoy, didn't you say that...
// Al-Jezeera is a joke
...and that...
// I find CNN, BBC and the like to be quite biased against America
So, um, you consider the news sources that most media observers reckon to be biased in favour of the 'coalition' side to actually have a bias in favour of Iraq, and the main arabic news source to be not even worth your while. Just how long did you consider, and how much did you read before you became 'comfortable with where you stand.'
And what news sources do you consider worth reading, SoldierBoy?
//John Pilger recommended to Kim Hill ...
//John Pilger recommended to Kim Hill when she started talking like Bush's PA
Let me guess. You don't recognise playing Devil's advocate either?
Was it just me or were Pilger and Hill ...
Was it just me or were Pilger and Hill just like two fighting kids in that interview?
something had riled Pilger up, for ...
something had riled Pilger up, for sure. Kim's like that anyway, so it was always going to get testy once they started sniping at each other. he was patronising, she was belligerent -- not a good combo.
but when kim sent his book skittering across her desk with a backhanded swipe! classic!
Kim Hill was NOT playing Devil's ...
Kim Hill was NOT playing Devil's Advocate - if you had recorded it like me you would have the benefit of repeated viewings.
Also - John Pilger reacted angrily because he expected Kim Hill (being from NZ which has an anti-war stance) to be more enlightened and ask the kind of questions that would turn heads...instead of stomachs.
// Kim Hill was NOT playing Devil's ...
// Kim Hill was NOT playing Devil's Advocate - if you had recorded it like me you would have the benefit of repeated viewings.
That's a surprise, as that is one of her usual tactics.
<< it's hard to believe she wasn't ...
<< it's hard to believe she wasn't taking the Devil's Advocate role for any other reason than to keep Pilger (a man who's probably used to interviews where he's essentially given a platform to state his viewpoint without debate) on his toes.>>
Well, you're assuming that other country's journalists would risk letting John Pilger say most of the things he truly feels/thinks. An American or British show could well face censorship or a forced resignation, like that CNN Kiwi-born guy was. Independent thought - naughty,naughty.
Kim Hill smirks and grimaces her way through interviews because she has her finger on the pulse of other media, instead of on the pulse of the world. The first is an interpretation designed to perpetuate American twisted and contradictory ideology and the other is the neglected facts and truths that keep getting swept under the carpet.
Kim Hill had the opportunity to enlighten many viewers in New Zealand, but instead she chose to challenge John b/c his stance and opinions made Kim nervous about her own differing but factually unsound ones. She also, being one of the most arrogant people I have ever had the displeasure of seeing in action, tried to take the opportunity to selfishly challenge him as her ego simply couldn't resist having a dig. However, to my great pleasure John, faced the more pressing fact that innocent people are being slaughtered (yes Saddam's being doing it too - but, how was that any worse?) and she shouldn't be wasting his time. He burned her and her questions quickly decended into farce. Her statement at the end - "I'll see you next week...I hope", was her only concession that she is a total fuck-up, but for someone so self-involved, it bordered on a confession.
It's too frustrating to argue about what I saw as an obvious waste of time by Kim Hill and the tragic loss of a great stage on which to open some eyes. I'll just have to agree to disagree. Devil's advocate? Liberal? Come on - Liberal is a state of mind too surely - she's a stuffy, cynical bitch - not a liberal. Anyway if she WAS liberal, she could have skipped DA altogether and just chatted with the guy - I don't buy it.
// ...an obvious waste of time by Kim ...
// ...an obvious waste of time by Kim Hill...
You can't just accuse Kim of wasting time. Pilger was being an arsehole with the way he handled some of the questions. To reiterate Limegreen's example...
Hill: How would you describe the activities of the United Nations up until this point?
Pilger: Which area of the United Nations? It's a very big organisation.
I mean, what sort of answer is that? She's thrown him a big bone, he can take his pick of what he wants to talk about with regards to the role of the UN in the Iraq conflict, and he's just getting petty.
// Well, you're assuming that other country's journalists would risk letting
// John Pilger say most of the things he truly feels/thinks.
Well, yes, at the moment one suspects he would be rather unpopular on the US/UK chat-show circuit. I was thinking more about his overall experience as an interview subject though, when he's probably been part of many more John Campbell-esqu nod-fests than Kim Hill-like finger-wagging-sessions.
But, anyway, yes, let's leave it at that.
//Kim Hill had the opportunity to ...
//Kim Hill had the opportunity to enlighten many viewers in New Zealand
John Pilger also had the the opportunity to enlighten many viewers in New Zealand. However, as Noizy reiterates, he chose to argue the question and not the point.
//Kim Hill smirks and grimaces her way through interviews because she has her finger on the pulse of other media, instead of on the pulse of the world. The first is an interpretation designed to perpetuate American twisted and contradictory ideology and the other is the neglected facts and truths that keep getting swept under the carpet.
That's a big call. Although I'm not sure even if the latter half were true, that it causes her smirks and grimaces. What do you base that on? Did you learn that in Media Studies 101?
//a stuffy, cynical bitch - not a liberal.
a think it is possible to be all of the above. Cynicism is probably an advantage if you are a liberal. It sounds to me more like you have a pet hate of Kim Hill than an argument.
I saw it a couple of times, and I ...
I saw it a couple of times, and I thought it was a pretty standard Kim Hill approach (she did, however, lose the rag a bit as Pilger started dissing her statements, uh, questions).
I can't recall which paper I read it in, but in an article that was published a day or two after, I think she claimed she was going to give Pilger a hard time, but that's what her job entailed. I suspect Pilger took this to be something of a challenge, and from there it was all downhill.
// John Pilger reacted angrily because he expected Kim Hill ... to be more enlightened
Well, it would've been a bit dull if it had turned into a John Pilger love-fest a al Campbell/Chomsky post-September 11. Or maybe not.
Kimmy'd be one of the most liberal-lefty peaceniks working in NZ media today -- it's hard to believe she wasn't taking the Devil's Advocate role for any other reason than to keep Pilger (a man who's probably used to interviews where he's essentially given a platform to state his viewpoint without debate) on his toes. Pity it turned to custard. I wonder how Campbell would go with him. Or, ahahaha, Holmes.
I haven't had the pleasure of viewing ...
I haven't had the pleasure of viewing it a couple of times, but went off to do some research after your rebuke. I didn't manage to find a full transcript of it, but from the parts that I did see written down it does look rather like they were both being rather contrary.
I do still think she was playing DA. As Noizy pointed out, she's hardly a conservative.
Take this:
Hill: All this time, then, the United Nations and weapons inspectors have been some kind of puppets of the US.
Pilger: Are you saying that?
Hill: I am asking you whether that is what you are implying?
Pilger: That's a leading question, I wouldn't ...
Hill: How would you describe the activities of the United Nations up until this point?
Pilger: Which area of the United Nations? It's a very big organisation.
It seems to me that Hill's question ought to be a platform for Pilger to disagree, or at least make a statement, but Pilger is being contrary.
Or rather, I have an argument that ...
Or rather, I have an argument that results in a pet hate of her.
The question about the UN WAS loaded b/c it inferred that they were useless (was heading that way) and John was growing tired of her angle - which frankly was conservative and pro=American (not explicitly, but implicitly, which is far more dangerous. I think my dislike of Kim Hill gives me more perspective, not less.
//So, um, you consider the news sources ...
//So, um, you consider the news sources that most media observers reckon to be biased in favour of the 'coalition' side to actually have a bias in favour of Iraq, and the main arabic news source to be not even worth your while. Just how long did you consider, and how much did you read before you became 'comfortable with where you stand.'
And what news sources do you consider worth reading, SoldierBoy?
Well, I have Sky, so I watch CNN, Sky News, MSNBC and BBC. I also watch One Network news and 3 news in the evening. I read the Herald. I don't agree with everything the agencies say, but I'm able to make up my mind from watching them. And I've read some articles from Al Jazeera over the past few days too, just for interest's sake. I even went so far as to access Indymedia the other day (shudder) yesterday evening. There, enough?
And which "media experts" are the ones you mention?
//The question about the UN WAS loaded ...
//The question about the UN WAS loaded b/c it inferred that they were useless (was heading that way) and John was growing tired of her angle - which frankly was conservative and pro=American (not explicitly, but implicitly, which is far more dangerous.
I asked earlier whether you recognised Devil's Adocate, and by my estimation you still don't. That was a complete patsy lob. She said something that was would have been unbelievably easy for him to disagree with and outline why.
I think you give Kim too much ...
I think you give Kim too much credit.
I understand what Devil's advocate means - for the last time believe me on this. She was trying to expose the UN's lack of bite and power so that she could put John's anti-American spotlight under strain. This underlying motive was what brought the interview eventually into disrepute. Not every Kiwi (journalist or otherwise) is balanced and playing "devil's advocate" every time they offer up something different. Just have a look at some of the vitriolic letters to the editor in the Herald which are decidedly pro-war........like Kim Hill's words, there are many similarities between the language and its connotations.
// There, enough? Yeah, that's cool ...
// There, enough?
Yeah, that's cool -- I didn't mean my question to come across as aggressively as it seemed in print: I was just interested in what sources you were looking at.
// And which "media experts" are the ones you mention?
I assume you mean the bit where I say:
"...media observers reckon to be biased..."
'Observers', that is, not necessarily 'experts' -- they just happened to get published by newspapers, magazines and 'reputable' websites. It doesn't take long to find a few articles from a range of sources (western, muslim and other) that talk of the mainstream western media's bias to the US/UK official line...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24285
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie20011006/op1.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3789713.html
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/search_content/0325/p01s04-woiq.html
http://publicaddress.net/default,337.sm#post337
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F03...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3301082
<b>Solution to war</b> Iraq overthrow ...
Solution to war Iraq overthrow saddam hussein via use of underground resistance groups, America and britain, get the fuck outta iraq, before more people are killed, Bush is another KY.
[ external link ]
Minority groups did rise up in the ...
Minority groups did rise up in the south during 1991/1992 when the Gulf War was coming to an end.
The Americans promised to support them but pulled out, thinking that it would be best if Saddam was still in power.
Saddam crushed them.
Interesting to see that allegedly the ...
Interesting to see that allegedly the coalition of the willing is brutalising independent journalists (ie, those not accredited and attached to coalition forces).
If it's true, that fucking appalling
[ external link ]
as Bush said... "You're either with ...
as Bush said...
"You're either with us, or against us."
Not accredited = against us, I assume.
heh. did you see the chicken post?...
heh. did you see the chicken post?
[ external link ]
aha! yes -- probably the mental trigger ...
aha! yes -- probably the mental trigger that caused my post above.
So, I assume Aunty Helen's stance has made NZ as a whole, "against" the USA?
When does the invasion start, I wonder...?
//Not accredited = against us, I ...
//Not accredited = against us, I assume.
Not exactly helping us get more balanced media
//When does the invasion start, I wonder...?
I'd heard they were going to break our will first. Quite an insidious campaign based around high fat takeaways and terrible coffee from multi-national corporations.
[ http://viva.fidels.com ]
heheh. just realised that is a little ...
heheh. just realised that is a little ambiguous. although it gets me wondering a) why certain people here go to a certain cafe, and b) whether certain others would avoid it....
//When does the invasion start, I ...
//When does the invasion start, I wonder...?
It already has. The government and I got together and decided that the best line of attack would be to first infiltrate the forums... I'm very insidious, you know.
(please please note the obvious sarcasm. Ever since that whole election imbroglio, the government and I aren't speaking.)
PEACE!!...
PEACE!!
Yay - power to the peaceful...
Yay - power to the peaceful
I'm down with Peace. I went to the ...
I'm down with Peace.
I went to the museum, and had a look at the holocaust display. After all these years we still haven't learned a damn thing.
yeah i went there yesterday, been ...
yeah i went there yesterday, been before but its still sad.
//After all these years we still ...
//After all these years we still haven't learned a damn thing.
And the country in which I reside seems to be going backwards in its learning.
American media continues to get rid of ...
American media continues to get rid of actual journalists. makes it harder to lie when you have pesky journalists with integrity running around.
[ external link ]
"...it was wrong for him to discuss ...
"...it was wrong for him to discuss personal observations and opinions in that interview."
Ey? I'm always amazed when the home of 'Free Speech' clamps down hard on people just voicing their opinions. Seems to be a bit of this going on in the US at the moment. velocity, have you got an 'End the War Now' t-shirt you can wear to the local mall ready to go yet? Or is that just asking for trouble?
I think given the circumstances - ...
I think given the circumstances - particularly while the coalition still holds out for a local uprising - an American telling Iraqi TV that the coalition isn't doing very well may not have been a prudent move.
Ahaha. yes. He did admit as much later. ...
Ahaha. yes. He did admit as much later. Still, it's no worse than what 95% of the pundits were spouting over the last couple of days in the western media. He wouldn't have got the sack for saying the same thing in an interview with say, just for the sake of mental imagery, Anita McNaught on BBC.
Heh. Well he clearly did it because of ...
Heh. Well he clearly did it because of his associations with traitorous evil NZ.
Saddam is evil but comparatively ...
Saddam is evil but comparatively ill-equipped.
Bush is less evil but so much better equiped and capable of destruction that his evil is subsequently greater.
I do feel sorry for the soldiers/pawns who are dying - as one was quoted as saying, "we just follow orders".........sad.
Arnett's been rehired already. By the ...
Arnett's been rehired already. By the Daily Mirror
[ external link ]
Classic. I wonder if he and John Pilger ...
Classic. I wonder if he and John Pilger (who also writes for the Mirror) will be friends?
I think they'll probably have a spat ...
I think they'll probably have a spat over split infinitives, and never talk to each other again, even though they have a lot in common.