The Unamerican Media

As we if could expect any better from our media. Defeatist, pathetic, treasonous ... they disgust me.

Comments

[TheSpartan]

re·sil·ient      /rɪˈzɪlyənt, -ˈzɪliənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zil-yuhnt, -zil-ee-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. springing back; rebounding.

2. returning to the original form or position after being bent, compressed, or stretched.

3. recovering readily from illness, depression, adversity, or the like; buoyant

Ok, so now the proper use of a word makes the press treasonous? Are they not resilient? 4 years of fighting the best equipped military in the world and they are sill around... I don't know what planet you're on Dan, but that sounds resilient to me. The mistake you're making is in assuming that the word on it's own has a positive connotation. Now if they used a modifier like "wonderfully resilient" or "gloriously resilient" then you might have a point, but you don't.

[seekeronos]

Just barely open to interpretation, I'd say...

Glossed over with just the thinnest veneer of restraint short of being openly propagandist in favour of American defeat. Wonder where they get their feeds from... al-Jazeerah? al-AP?

[LOL]

they are treasonous for saying what you don't want to hear?

8 GIs died saturday Dan...

[Buzzy]

Hmmm, the AP (and other news sources) apparently like the term insurgent to describe the Baath Party Sunni's were fighting. Insurgent is defined as "a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment" as opposed to still calling them belligerents "belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war".

So apparently the AP thinks we shouldn't treat Sunni "insurgents" under the laws of war and they have no protection under the Geneva Conventions. Ha, I just convinced myself that the AP is right, ship them all to Gitmo guys they have no protection as soldiers.

They don't try to hide their anti American feeling to much though do they.

[Cindi]

8 GIs died saturday Dan...

Posted by: LOL | Monday, March 19, 2007 at 01:00 AM

Yeah, they died. Doing what the believe in. Get it dumb ass?

[Purple Avenger]

"8 GIs died saturday Dan..."

How many insurgents got permanently "resilient" that day?

[yyy]

I would say five years worth of insurgency makes them pretty resilient. If you remember the 'insurgency' was first alleged to be the last remnants of Saddam's army, then it was alleged to be foreign terrorists, and these insurgents have been in their death throes for a couple of years now.....

As per ususal, when the objective truth isn't what you want it to be, you attack anyone who tells it or believes it.

[Legalize]

"...treasonous."

The word doesn't mean what you think it means, Riehl.

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, the enemy IS resilient, most of our country's enemies have been. That's why we will have to destroy so many of them this time, as in the past. Let's get at it. LOL, you should be ashamed of yourself for that remark. Not for what you wrote, but for what you meant by it.

[Legalize]

"Yes, the enemy IS resilient, most of our country's enemies have been."

Treason. I can't believe how much you Hateamerica.

[Fred Beloit]

Let's quit screwing around and look right at the heart of the matter. The enemy is counting on you and people who think like you to pull off another retreat, as in Viet Nam. The war has lasted so long for two reasons. First, the President was trying to conduct a more humane war, yes, an oxymoron, to placate you and your representatives in Government and the media. That didn't work on the battlefield and didn't work with you folks. Your opposition became more strident. Two, the enemy, whose religion offers to the ignorant all sorts of pleasures after they die by suicide or fighting, IS tough and their leaders feel they can hang in there until you folks force a retreat through opposition here at home. You are completely invested in defeat in Iraq. The last thing on earth you want is success for the US in this war. Though you pretend to be horrified by soldiers and marines being killed, you actually like it. You know it will hasten the day we retreat if you keep harping on the numbers. There is a man over at Marc Cooper's site who lists the names of the American dead, their rank, etc, on a daily basis. You lefties ought to go read him. You'd love it. And we have the audacity to question your patriotism. Well aren't we terrible.

[seekeronos]

Ref. Fred's above post:

Japan thought the same way sixty years ago. Even their top leadership knew that they would never beat America in a protracted war, and the chief engineer of the Pearl Harbor strike, Yamamoto Isoroku, thought Imperial Japan would win victory after victory for only the first year or so, but afterwards, would only expect defeat... unless Japan could strike a hard enough blow to severely disrupt American morale (i.e. a very steep death toll) in the Pacific.

Fortunately for us and them, we were not quitters then.

Let us follow their example, and put power behind this war. Let us go in and beat Islam, roll it back, and de-islamify that nation, just as we de-nazified Hitler's Germany, and de-mystified the imperial cult of personality around Hirohito.

[yyy]

First, we should never have invaded Iraq at all. Let's not forget that every reason given for invading Iraq has proven to be false. Iraq was not a threat, Iraq had no ties to Al Quaeda, Iraq had no WMD, Iraq had no chemical weapons, Iraq had no restarted nuclear weapons program.

Second, we weren't trying to wage a humane war, we were trying to wage a war on the cheap to prove a strategic and abstract point about the 'new' military relying on technology instead of troops. We continued for almost four years to wage this war on the cheap, failing to make any appropriate stratigic or tactical changes because the people in charge are and were so arrogant that they refused to admit they made any mistakes, refusing to admit any mistakes made it impossible to make a change.

Three, the military is not set up to wage long term 'war' against guerilla armies living among civilian populations. We failed to learn this lesson in Vietnam and we are now in the process of relearning it. Unless we kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we are not going to wipe out either the Shia militia or the Sunni fighters. What is needed is POLITICAL SOLUTION, not a military one, which even our own military leaders have now recognized.

Four, you are an idiot.

[Legalize]

"The enemy is counting on you and people who think like you to pull off another retreat, as in Viet Nam."

Yes, I hear Dick Cheney spouting off that talking point every five minutes as well. Problem is, you and he have been fucking WRONG about EVERYTHING since this war began - why should we start thinking otherwise now?

"First, the President was trying to conduct a more humane war, yes, an oxymoron, to placate you and your representatives in Government and the media. That didn't work on the battlefield and didn't work with you folks. Your opposition became more strident."

That's an interesting bit of revisionist bullshit you've got there.

"Two, the enemy, whose religion offers to the ignorant all sorts of pleasures after they die by suicide or fighting, IS tough and their leaders feel they can hang in there until you folks force a retreat through opposition here at home."

Really? Wow. It only took you four years to figure that out, huh? You should be at the AEI with Richard Perle and Bill Kristol; your powers of analysis are staggering. Although, you forgot to blame Bill Clinton in there. The insurgents were permitted to gather strength and power because of the de-Baathification program instituted by Bremmer and the provisional authority; the insuregents were permitted to gather strength because the "coalition of the willing" wasn't interested in propping up the civil institutions of the country - but rather they prefered to hold meaningless elections every few months and hold press conferences touting "democracy"; the insurgents gathered strength because of rampant unemployment, total lack of border security, total lack of civil law and order - the most basic element to a functioning society, etc. etc. SO, you can blame the incompetnce of the administration on the librul media, Bill Clinton, and the dirty hippies you hate so much, but anyone paying attention to the lessons of history, knows better.

"You are completely invested in defeat in Iraq. The last thing on earth you want is success for the US in this war."

Hey, Dick Cheney's back again. Last time I checked, I wasn't running this incompetent and failed war; I didn't send in far too few troops; I didn't utterly fail to secure peace in Baghdad; I didn't disband the military and the police; I didn't fail to reconstruct; I didn hire my cronys to rip-off the American tax-payer; I didn't send 3000 troops to their deaths without a coherent mission; I haven't thown hundreds of billions into a black hole. So, in short, quit your bitching and win your beautiful war already. Pick up a gun, hero.

"Though you pretend to be horrified by soldiers and marines being killed, you actually like it. You know it will hasten the day we retreat if you keep harping on the numbers. There is a man over at Marc Cooper's site who lists the names of the American dead, their rank, etc, on a daily basis. You lefties ought to go read him. You'd love it. And we have the audacity to question your patriotism. Well aren't we terrible."

Yes, I terribly enjoy that my friends are being shipped out from time to time, and that some of them don't come back, and that their kids are orphans, their wives widows, while you and cowards just like you use their names to justify your failures - all from the comfort of your lay-z-boy. You don't have any fucking clue, coward.

[Fred Beloit]

Now see, yyy, you were doing well representing your side, you are wrong, but were doing a serious job until you got to four. I assure you if we were sitting across a table from one another you would not make a remark like that. Why do it in this forum? But I will treat you like a human being one more time. One, the entire international community believed Iraq had and would use WMD. The liar wasn't Bush, it was Saddam himself. Why else stymie the UN's inspections and defy the 19 UN resolutions? Two, we were trying to wage a humane war, otherwise why did our troops have to operate under such strict rules of engagement, why give terrorists who were not entitled to it protection of the Geneva Convention, why the early efforts at reconstructing Iraq. There are many other examples that can be cited. Three, our military has always been able to fight guerrillas. We did it all over the globe. The Philippines and Haiti are two example. These conflicts generally take a longer time and victory is usually less than unconditional surrender, but we did it before and were winning militarily in Viet Nam when your predecessors won the propaganda war here at home. Four, nothing.

[Zifnab]

"Even their top leadership knew that they would never beat America in a protracted war, and the chief engineer of the Pearl Harbor strike, Yamamoto Isoroku, thought Imperial Japan would win victory after victory for only the first year or so, but afterwards, would only expect defeat... unless Japan could strike a hard enough blow to severely disrupt American morale (i.e. a very steep death toll) in the Pacific."

Yes, that would make perfect sense expect Japan attacked us first, then proceeded to wage war on us for the next four years. The Japanese people had no vested interest in picking a fight with Americans, and the attack was entirely unprovoked. Some might call it a "pre-emptive war" started by the Japanese.

We're not America in the analogy, Seek. Shock and Awe. Pre-emptive strikes. A war for oil and other natural resources. We're Japan.

[yyy]

The rules of engagement are strict because when you invade a foreign country that isn't at war with you and start randomly killing innocent civilians it will turn the civilian population against you and you will have to commit virtual genocide to keep the peace.

Since we "liberated" Iraq and in the process dropped a lot of bombs, destroying their infrastructure, I would assume unless we intended to kill them all or enslave them it would be incumbent upon us to rebuild.

As far as I know we haven't given anyone the protection of the Geneva Convention, far from it, we've flaunted and enshrined our contempt for the Geneva Convention in our new legaleze definitions of torture and abuse.

The idea that we were 'winning' in Vietnam or that we would have won is a myth started by the neocons.

[Fred Beloit]

Legalize, I will simply ignore your diatribe ("a violent attack in words, abusive criticism) as is my frequent practice. Though I am capable of replying in kind, I will restrain myself because to respond with a diatribe ruins one's credibility, something you might want to recall when you are at court. How is business BTW? I will tell you something, however, since you used the C word on me. When I was in the Army, my MOS was 1542. Are you hip?

[Fred Beloit]

ZIF, Iraq is Pearl Harbor and we are Japan? Off the charts.

[Fred Beloit]

yyy, randomly killing civilians? Off the charts.

[Fred Beloit]

See folks, it's like I've said before. SOS as usual.

[yyy]

What do you think loosening the rules of engagements would result in? It would result in HIGHER CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, innocent civilians being randomly or mistakenly or inadvertantly killed.

[templar knight]

A war for oil and other natural resources? Huh? Then when in the hell are we going to get the oil? And the other natural resources, whatever the hell they are. I'm damn curious about this.

[Fred Beloit]

Tell me more about the "innocent civilians" you and the media keep talking about. Is it the mothers who see one of their kids bomb a restaurant in a suicide mission and then tell the press they can't wait till more of their kiddies grow up so they can do the same? Is it those who knowingly provide financial support and food and shelter to the enemy? Is it the propagandists who supply doctored and staged photos to the AP? Is it those who see the enemy setting up roadside bombs, but don't warn approaching soldiers and even civilians? We do have strict rules of engagement, but that hasn't stopped you from saying we randomly attack civilians has it?

[templar knight]

You libs have pretty much outdone yourselves this morning. Let's see, Iraq is Pearl Harbor, we are the Imperial(I just had to get that in) Japanese, our soldiers randomly kill civilians, it's so much fun, you know, and we're all (fucking) cowards if we don't pick up a gun and head to Iraq.

Damnation!

[Zifnab]

"Then when in the hell are we going to get the oil? And the other natural resources, whatever the hell they are. I'm damn curious about this."

"As Iraq goes to the polls in this month’s referendum on the draft Constitution, the fate of the country’s oil reserves has once again escaped public scrutiny – despite their central importance to Iraq’s future economy. According to Oil Ministry officials, contracts will be signed with foreign oil companies during the first nine months of 2006, opening the majority of Iraq’s oilfields to western companies for the first time in 33 years."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/1001laysground.htm

These deals just recently went into effect, although the oil companies have been slow to move on them due to the national instability.

Again, I'm not saying this was a brilliant move on the administration's part. Kinda like sticking your dick in a bear-trap because there's a woman on the other end. But there you have it.

[Zifnab]

The alternative? Iraq Pearl Harbored America? Seeker was the one convinced that we had to stay-the-course like we did against the Japanese, because Iraq is exactly like WWII.

And I believe Fred was the one claiming we could have won Vietnam if we'd just held in there a few more Friedmans.

You guys seem to be continually convinced that America is the victim here. Iraq was pissing down its own gym shorts while it crumbled apart from the inside before we invaded. Then we attacked them for absolutely no reason, screaming about WMDs, and broke open the hornet's nest. Now we're getting stung like crazy, and all you guys can do is bitch about how if we'd just hit the nest a bit harder, none of this would be happening right now.

And if we'd just dropped a little more napalm on Vietnam, everything would have been just fine. Completely delusional.

[yyy]

I DID NOT SAY WE RANDOMLY ATTACK CIVILIANS.

I said that the rules of engagement were strict because randomly killing civilians would be counter productive, and if you don't believe that loosening the rules of engagement would result in more deaths of innocent civilians.

But I can see by your diatribe that you obviously don't believe there are any "innocent" Iraqis, which goes back to my original point about you being an idiot.

As far as helping the "enemy" historically and literally we are an invading army occupying their country. We claim we went there for noble purposes but that doens't change the fact that we are foreign power controlling THEIR COUNTRY and if some of them don't like it and fight our soldiers that shouldn't be surprising.

[yyy]

PS, I suppose the 14 year old girl our troops gang raped and murdered and her 5 year old sister weren't innocent either, probably sympathized with the insurgents, probably didn't like the American troops, probably deserved it.

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, Zif, and foreign countries have banks and all kinds of businesses here in the States and we have all kinds there. Are all of these oil companies American? Won't the companies pay the market prices to Iraq for the oil. Won't the enemy try to stop or slow production? Should those who are most efficient get the job of extracting the oil? Won't the revenue from them help Iraq stabilize and restructure itself? Just trying to understand?

[yyy]

And that wedding party that was bombed, remember, way back in the old days, when our military initially tried to say this was some kind of terrorist stronghold, and then the treasonous media showed photos of dead people dressed in what looked exactly like wedding party atire.

I guess they weren't innocent civilians randomly killed. Probably a bunch of dirty terrorists that were holding a fake wedding complete with children and old people just to throw us off.

What's the cut off for being an innocent victim Fred? Babies, toddlers, teenagers? It appears that you believe all the adults are deserving of death.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, pardon me all over the place. I guess you said "killing civilians" and I thought you said "attacking civilians". So it is so-called collateral damage of which you spoke? Then I will point to the accuracy, achieved at great effort and expense, of our heavy weaponry to demonstrate our policy of keeping such "damage" to a minimum, a minimum considering this is a war. If only our enemy felt the same way, eh yyy, you poo poo head.(Who said that? Is Rob on line?)

[Fred Beloit]

Cut the s--t, yyy. Civilians here rape people on a much higher percentage than the military. And in the military they are caught and punished just as in the civilian population here.

[yyy]

War of choice. No one attacked us. Since we claim we invaded Iraq to protect ourselves and the 'people of Iraq' were to be liberated, it would seem the least we can do is not randomly or mistakenly kill them.

Collateral damage as a euphamism for randomly killed innocent people doesn't work for me, too Orwellian. Dead people are not collateral damage, collateral damage is when the town hospital gets bombed by mistake. Dead civilians are dead civilians.

[Fred Beloit]

The wedding party, yyy? You just were careful to tell me you never said we were attacking civilians, that they were being killed. Now you are saying we attacked, as is usual practice a wedding party? You can't have it both ways. (You pee pee pants. Cut it out,Rob)

[yyy]

I believe we dropped a bomb on the wedding party by mistake, troops didn't bust down the door and massacre everyone. The result is the same though, innocent people dead at the hands of American troops.

Do you really believe that only a single 14 year old Iraqi girl has been raped by American troops in the last four years?

[Fred Beloit]

Right yyy, I agree. "Collateral damage" is a euphemism. The enemy probably agrees as well. They kill "innocent civilians" on purpose. That's why we (but not CNN) call them terrorists.

[Fred Beloit]

"...innocent people dead at the hands of American troops." Well, yyy, see here is where we part company just a bit. You have no way of knowing, anymore than the NYT, that these people were innocent. "Innocent of what?" as the Sherif of Big Whiskey said in the Eastwood film Unforgiven. Guilty people marry too. But these mistakes happen in war, hard as everyone tries not to make them.

[yyy]

And that is why war is to be avoided and used only as a last resort.

Of course the mindless propaganda about Islamofascists and idea that all/most arabs are terrorists and the hatred of arabs and muslims that is encouraged by the right certainly doesn't help in limiting criminal incidents or mistakes when it comes to civilians interacting with soldiers.

When you dehumanize your enemy and you decide that 'most' of them are guilty of something you have made it exponentially easier and more likely that terrible things will happen.

If you replaced 'arab/muslim' with 'jew' in most of the ranting posts on this forum you would come fairly close to the ravings of the Nazis...But of course, none of you see that, because, ya know, this is different, and these guys really, are animals.

[Darth Malice]

We need to stop turning the other cheek.Bush needs to stop with the liberals,and we need to stop with Islam.

[charles]

i saw this story in yahoo this morning

then i click over to dan's and see it as a topic at the time showing 28 comments

i say to myself, "this should be revealing" and i wasn't disappointed

dan, this place has become a kindergarten for the thickest lefties in existence on the internet

you have quite a collection of the most willfully obtuse, immature, childish, disingenuous retard helmet requiring opposition i have ever experienced

the best i can say is that you are saving for posterity the embarrassment these guys manufacture on a daily basis

with untold examples of these persons aligning against one of the greatest forces for freedom in modern history

i can only hope when these obviously inexperienced individuals mature enough to acquire two functioning synapses, they may regret the fools they have proved themselves to be

but at this point in time we can see that they have no shame and our military is made up of far greater men than these pipsqueaks will ever amount to in their own lifetimes

so now lefties, reply to my post and prove me right, because you already disgust me

[Fred Beloit]

But, yyy, aren't you forgetting something? One beautiful September morning, we were minding our own business when these Arabs deliberately flew aircraft into the World Trade Center. Now true it wasn't Iraqis who did this. They were too busy trying to survive under a tyrant. Turns out these people were linked to a religio-political group run by a guy who had warned us he was making war on us. Something clearly had to be done. But what? As far as we knew this guy was being sheltered by the Taliban in the Afhgan. We went after him. (Here is where you take out your map of the Middle East.) I don't know any more than anybody else about why we attacked Iraq. But we went to the UN with the accusations about Iraq WMD. They agreed with us that they were a threat, Clinton agreed, Kerry agreed, Reid agreed, there are videotapes of all these people and more who agreed. UN resolutions (19 I believe) were passed and ignored. We finally did something to eliminate this threat. But the President had a dream, if you will, of a new Iraq, a democracy. That is why he just didn't want to depose Saddam but to rebuild the country into a democracy. Well that's my version of how we got where we are now. So, I believe we should finish the job. Democracies tend not to make war on their neighbors. Despots do tend to do that. Plus look at the map. Iran is virtually sorrounded.

[Zifnab]

"you have quite a collection of the most willfully obtuse, immature, childish, disingenuous retard helmet requiring opposition i have ever experienced"

And they smell funny. And they wear white shoes after Labor Day. And their mothers wear army boots.

Also, they all have very, very tiny penises.

[Zifnab]

"But, yyy, aren't you forgetting something? One beautiful September morning, we were minding our own business when these Arabs from Saudi Arabia and Jordan deliberately flew aircraft into the World Trade Center."

FIXED :)

[Fred Beloit]

Zif, I'm a little obtuse today perhaps, but I don't get it.

[seekeronos]

Ziffy is probably trying to be politically correct in stating that the 20-odd members of the 9-11 attack were Saudis and Jordanians.

But the point remains: they were Arabs who subscribed to a particularly nasty vision of Islam, which calls for the destruction of the West and the restoration and supremacy of the Islamic Caliphate.

[seekeronos]

Also:

"And that is why war is to be avoided and used only as a last resort."

Very, very, very true.

I agree. But if we must go to war, then it is perfectly acceptable to wage a war in such a manner that the enemy never gets up again -- even if it does mean nearly destroying them to a man, and reducing all of thier cities to rubble.

In fact, it is almost required, if one reasonably expects to bring a brainwashed society ruled by fanatic and/or insane rulers. Islam is a very disease which if not cured, will go on to subsume the entire planet in its unparalleled, satanically inspired madness.

Islam is the enemy, and I am nearly convinced that nothing short of either annihilating or forcing an unconditional surrender from the Islamist governments, will this world ever be safe again.

[seekeronos]

*Edit:

"In fact, it is almost required, if one reasonably expects to bring _down_ a brainwashed society ruled by fanatic and/or insane rulers."

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks, Seek, I guess I was obtuse, but I thought that my next sentence ("Now true it wasn't Iraqis who did this.") took care of it. But perhaps Zif didn't read more than a sentence or two before reacting. I'm afraid I have done this myself once or twice.

[Zifnab]

"But the point remains: they were Arabs who subscribed to a particularly nasty vision of Islam, which calls for the destruction of the West and the restoration and supremacy of the Islamic Caliphate."

Yes, they were. But we choose not to deal with those Arabs. Instead, we found a completely different set of dark skinned people to bomb and invade. Even if I were to concede that the Bush Administration gives a damn about national security, you would still be forced to concede, in turn, that he has done an abysmal job of it.

He provoked a war with a secular government to combat radical religious ideology. The secular government was replaced by a pair of radical religious insurgencies both intent on killing Americans. He toppled a religious cult in Afganistan, then proceeded to starve the endevour of military support that would have prevented its resurgance. The result? Dick Cheney almost gets bombed on a stop-over because it's been 5 years and we still haven't finished off the Taliban.

Whether or not our little military crusade into the Middle East was right, it was definitely NOT smart. As much as you can screech and howl about Democrats/the media/protestors/whatever "losing the war" through rhetoric, Bush lost the war on the ground. That's, perhaps, the greatest sin in all this. He sent in the troops and didn't win. And now he's being a sore loser.

I still say Iraq could have worked. But it won't anymore, because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al so heavily dropped the ball. And they dropped the ball on the WRONG COUNTRY. When a bunch of Saudi Arabian/Jordanian plane-jackers want to fly into another tall building, there will be nothing to stop them. No 9/11 Commission recommendations. No reinforced airport security. No National Guard - they're all in Iraq. No money. No infrastructure. No nothin' 6 years, wasted. Completely squandered. Because of George W. Bush.