PDA

View Full Version : War protestors are bankrolled by commy & terrorists lovers


peter2002
Mar 17, 2003, 11:51 PM
Ever wonder how these protest groups come out of no where, so well organized, and get so much attention in the media? Well, it takes money, like $200,000+ per march. Where is the money coming from? Very well financed groups that support communism, N. Korea, Fidel Castro, and every other wacko cause you can think of.

Partial list:

1. I.F.C.O. (Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization) - I.F.C.O. is a million-dollar-a-year non-profit that supports Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and once sponsored a group headed by Sami Al-Arian Ś the University of South Florida professor being charged with fundraising for terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I.F.C.O. is a major backer of the protest group Not in Our Name.

2. Workers World Party - Has existed for more than 30 years now and has always supported the enemies of the United States," said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency. The Workers World Party describes itself as Marxist in nature.

Workers World Party supports protest group ANSWER. The Workers World Party supports North Korea's brutal regime and I.F.C.O. defied U.N. sanctions when it made a trip to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Now, both are sugar daddies to the anti-war movement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html

NavyIntel007
Mar 18, 2003, 12:17 AM
This is an interesting spin on things. That explains why a liberal school like the University of Miami can only muster about 25 students together to have a "peace" rally while the rest of the Gucci wearing student population who never watch the news wonders what's going on. God I love my school. :rolleyes:

alex_ant
Mar 18, 2003, 12:21 AM
Well, I was going to say "nonsense," but it's on Fox News so it must be true. Thank you, Peter, for yet more enlightening news.

- alex_ant (communist)

voicegy
Mar 18, 2003, 12:43 AM
Yup, Fox is the best. Fair, balanced, trustworthy.:o

ibookin'
Mar 18, 2003, 12:49 AM
Fox news? No comment.

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 01:00 AM
Actually, it has been on ABC and CNN too. It is true, the permits were filed by those organizations for the protests, so you don't have to have a slide ruler to figure that out. :rolleyes:

As for Fox news. #1 in the US. What does that tell you?

macfan
Mar 18, 2003, 01:03 AM
alex_ant (communist) = alex_ant(one with a basic misunderstanding of human nature).

Most of the protesters don't know and don't care who sponsors them. However, it is not very intelligent, to say the least, to dismiss the charge that the protests are sponsored by groups that support governments such as North Korea's because the source is (gasp) Fox News. Just go look at the web sites of these organizations, and the information is proudly posted.

It seems that peter2002 has posted something that doesn't go beyond the content of the link he has posted!

etoiles
Mar 18, 2003, 01:13 AM
...in other words: we need to have more protest marches to take more money away from those baby eating commy terrorists.
:D

alex_ant
Mar 18, 2003, 01:18 AM
Macfan,

You used "however." Good job. But you also used a contraction. Try harder next time.

Guess what everyone. There are extremist nutjob organizations with money on both the left and the right. For every $1 spent by the communists against the war, there will be $1 spent by some racist skinhead party or biblical fundamentalist party or whatever for the war. I'm much too lazy to back that up, of course, as I don't really give a damn anyway.

wsteineker
Mar 18, 2003, 01:59 AM
First let me say that I have reviewed the links, seen the information on multiple networks, and come to the objective decision that it is true. That said, I do feel it necessary to point out the glaring problem with this thread. The title reads "War protestors are bankrolled by commy (sic) & terrorist lovers." It is obvious to me, as it should be to any reasonable person, that peter2002 has posted nothing more than flamebait. Yes, there is some validity to the claim the article puts forward. It is not, however, the validity of the article I question so much as the intent of its posting. I have a very difficult time believing that peter2002 or any other member so overtly hawkish and so historically unable to admit the possibility of reason in other's posts would issue a thread such as this for any purpose other than the further bullying of those who disagree with him, those he deems to be of "incorrect" political affiliation. I say that we right-minded members of the MacRumors community would do well to simply ignore these threads now and in the future, leaving the warhawks and sycophants to entertain themselves.

peterjhill
Mar 18, 2003, 06:10 AM
Is the pay good? What kind of benefits can I get as a war protestor? If the terrorists help fund the war protestors, and terrorists get money from drug sales, does that mean that protestors can get free drugs, or maybe they just get an employee discount. Are they considered a nonprofit organization? Do they have a 403b retirement plan? Let me know

:rolleyes:

RandomDeadHead
Mar 18, 2003, 06:20 AM
O'Reilly angers me.

wsteineker
Mar 18, 2003, 06:27 AM
Ok, even though I said we should all just leave this alone I feel like I'd be remiss if I didn't say one more thing. Any network that employs both Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly should be ashamed to call itself "fair and balanced." Honestly, people, admit it to yourselves. Fox News is among the least objective news organizations on the planet. I think Esquire summed it up best a few months ago in their "Dubious Achievement Awards" issue. They printed a graphic with various fox anchors in actual poses they'd struck while on the air, all of which were quite suggestive to say the least. The caption read simply "Fox News: It's Not Quite News, But It's Not Technically Porn." Enough said. :)

peterjhill
Mar 18, 2003, 07:33 AM
O'Reilly was on GMA this morning trying to say that 95% of people to his website support a boycott of France. Then he was trying to say that it was representative on the whole U.S.

:rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2003, 07:35 AM
You can say whatever you feel about fox, but i will say this! unlike the other news networks they allways try to have both sides represented! I think this is great then you make the call. Oh and about these orginazations getting money from the bad guys. O'reiley reported this back some time ago. No surprise. The peace marchers love to america bash but you didnt hear much from them when they were killing in bosnia, nor hardly a word while Saddam has Murdered and tortured his own people! Yet today they make every effort to bash George who is trying to make the world a better place. Peace marchers/Liberal Democrats just showing their true colors again and again.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 18, 2003, 07:42 AM
Well, this is quite interesting - showing how propaganda works in some strange ways. And how money can make a believer of almost anyone. Its a shame, though, but by playing to the media and making a scene, they get much more coverage and exposure. It only ends up muddying the waters.

I can't wait for this to all be over.

D

peterjhill
Mar 18, 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Peace marchers/Liberal Democrats just showing their true colors again and again.

I've just been readin slashdots moderator faq. Sure makes me wish we could have a similar system here.

moderate post as flamebait :D

LethalWolfe
Mar 18, 2003, 08:23 AM
I always thought this was old news. I'd seen stories bout this since the first protests started going on.


Lethal

Taft
Mar 18, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by peter2002
Workers World Party supports protest group ANSWER. The Workers World Party supports North Korea's brutal regime and I.F.C.O. defied U.N. sanctions when it made a trip to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Now, both are sugar daddies to the anti-war movement.


First of all, how can we point fingers at an organization for trying to do humanitarian efforts (getting food to people) even if those people are in a dictatorship.

Our government was responsible for the coup that overthrew a democratically elected leader in Chile in 1973. They also helped topple a democratic government in Iran in 1953. Both governments were replaced by west-friendly but brutal dictatorships. We have also supported bin Laden in the past. And Saddam's regime. Don't tell me our government has been innocent of doing far worse than these people attempting humanitarian efforts.

So why are we pointing fingers at these "suger-daddies" that supposedly funding "terrorism"?

Second, we still don't know if Sami Al-Arian has funded terrorists. And, even if he did at some point, that doesn't mean that any group he was affiliated with was doing the same or doing so knowingly. Do you think that any person or group who donated money to his causes was aiding and abeting terrorists? Even that middle class white lady that he hit up when going door to door?? This tie could be harmless. As far as I'm concerned, we just don't know yet.

Finally, as Alex said, just because some allegedly unseemly groups are sponsering the equipment and flyers for these events doesn't change my opinion that these events are for a worthy cause. I don't go there thinking, "I'm here supporting communism and terrorism!!" I'm there because I think a peaceful resolution is a possible and better solution. Most people at these events think likewise.

Taft

Taft
Mar 18, 2003, 08:54 AM
said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency.

Can someone tell me what the US Information Agency is?? Are they referring to the CIA? Is this a legitamate organization or some privately funded group?

Taft

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2003, 09:01 AM
A much worthy cause is getting tyrant/murders brought to justice! If they have killed 1 person that is 1 to many. Where are the marchers when it comes to North Korea? Where were they when it comes to the crimes agaisnt humanity Saddam has done? Anyone who thinks they march their way to peace with a known liar ,manipulator,terrorist like saddam is either very very naive or they are very very ignorant. Sure we need to help the people of Iraq and the best help i can think of is getting rid of Saddam for starters. The truth is comming out on these organizations and how and who funds. Its just sad that there is so many joes out there that think the propaganda they are being fed by hollywood and these organizations is true.

peterjhill
Mar 18, 2003, 09:17 AM
Why Iraq? Why not:
Libya
Cuba (damn communists ;-) )
North Korea
Israel and Palestine (come guys, let's just be friends)
Iran
Columbia

Why Iraq? Who voted the U.S. as the guardian's of Democracy? Heck, who even said that the U.S. government works? Let's set up a system of goverment in Iraq where the people with the most money get their man in office. Oh, Iraq already has that. Saddam is worth 9 billion dollars.

My big problem with this was is that in the last one (when I was serving in the US Navy) we kill a couple hundred thousand Iraqis, but did we punish anyone responsible for Kuwait? Did we hurt Saddam? It sure doesn't look like it. How many innocent Iraqis are going to be killed in this war? What is the current death rate of an Iraqi citizen? How many people will have to die before Bush is satisified that Saddam has paid enough for his sins? Who elected Bush God?

Will anyone mourn for Iraqi conscripts that are forced to fight on the front lines? Will the widows and orphans of those conscripts have a concert benefit to raise money for them?

It is all very sickening. I don't love Saddam, and I don't hate the U.S. I can't stand bigots and *******s though.

Oh, keep in mind what I said above before flaming, I served my country in the last war. I risked my life for "freedom" I have a good idea of what war is really like, not what the show on movies and tv. Watch Saving Private Ryan and understand that it is going to be alot worse than that.

Kid Red
Mar 18, 2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
You can say whatever you feel about fox, but i will say this! unlike the other news networks they allways try to have both sides represented! I think this is great then you make the call. Oh and about these orginazations getting money from the bad guys. O'reiley reported this back some time ago. No surprise. The peace marchers love to america bash but you didnt hear much from them when they were killing in bosnia, nor hardly a word while Saddam has Murdered and tortured his own people! Yet today they make every effort to bash George who is trying to make the world a better place. Peace marchers/Liberal Democrats just showing their true colors again and again.

You are discussing 2-3 different subjects and concluding that are are related to 'peace marchers/liberal democrats which is a typical redneck oil loving conservative biased thing to do. I'm a democrat and I wouldn't march for peace. Also, there's a difference between 'America bashing' and 'current government bashing'. I think most bashing is related to current 'redneck oil loving conservative biased Bush' here. Saddam has it coming, he going bye bye but that has nothing to do with some sketchy reporting practices by Fox. I love how republicans look for anything negative or opposed to their liking and slap the 'liberal' tag on it. Ah, liberal is only a bad thing if you are a republican.

Bush isn't trying to make the world a better place, he trying to get a stock pile of oil. This isn't about helping the people of iRaq as we've never helped anyone in the middle east unless it had to do with oil or downright broken international law. Why now? Why iRaq? Why not iRan? Why not Palestine? Why aren't we sweeping Pakestan? Saudi Arabia still produces a really big bunch of really bad terrorists and we haven't done anything there. indonesia, the Philippines (where we have a base for christ's sake) Bush is being biased with his power. He's only going after the easy and publicly idiotic dictator that has all the oil that his daddy couldn't get rid of when he had the chance. No protestes during Bosnia because of all the murdering, Clinton sent troops there.

I'm not against ridding the world of Sadaam, I'm skeptical of the 1) timing (bad public opinion for pres, need war to get support). 2) Economy is just as bad as Iraq's 3) Deficit is growing faster then Bush's vocabulary. Just a lot of things about this war that make you wonder about the reasonings. That's what some democrats debate about (like me). Also, keep in mind a lot of those protestors aren't democrats, they are green peace and other independant parties. Probably some of the same fanatics that protested the World Trade Organization thruout the world.

As for marching and protesting, you are right about one, they do pick and choose. No one protested the Taliban, it's teatment of women, public assination, destroying the budda statues, etc. There's nothing to portest yet with N Koera but that such be next on the list. I feel more stongly about dealing with them then Saddam.

Anyways, just hope it's a short quick war with little US casualties.

shakespeare
Mar 18, 2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for Fox news. #1 in the US. What does that tell you?

Oh, good god. Please tell me they're not number one. Oh, please.

If they are - well, that certainly explains some of Americans' willful blindness. I am angrier and angrier about how little the average American understands about the world.

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by peterjhill
Watch Saving Private Ryan and understand that it is going to be alot worse than that.

Wait a minute. You claim that you served in the Gulf War, and then you come up with a quote like that. That completely destroys your credibility. How on earth can you compare the landing on Normandy to invading a 3rd world country with a 10th rate army? How. That is total BS, and quite frankly very offensive to me since I had family at D-Day.

Iraq will be war, so yes there will be casualties, but nothing on the scale of difficulty, or loss that we saw at Normandy.

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by shakespeare
Oh, good god. Please tell me they're not number one. Oh, please.

If they are - well, that certainly explains some of Americans' willful blindness. I am angrier and angrier about how little the average American understands about the world.

If you want to be angry about that be angry for the clone that CNN is spitting out every day. Fox news is number one because it is fair and balanced.

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Kid Red
You are discussing 2-3 different subjects and concluding that are are related to 'peace marchers/liberal democrats which is a typical redneck oil loving conservative biased thing to do. I'm a democrat and I wouldn't march for peace. Also, there's a difference between 'America bashing' and 'current government bashing'. I think most bashing is related to current 'redneck oil loving conservative biased Bush' here. Saddam has it coming, he going bye bye but that has nothing to do with some sketchy reporting practices by Fox. I love how republicans look for anything negative or opposed to their liking and slap the 'liberal' tag on it. Ah, liberal is only a bad thing if you are a republican.

yes, liberal things are bad if you are a republican. Just like conservative things are if you are a democrat



Bush isn't trying to make the world a better place, he trying to get a stock pile of oil. This isn't about helping the people of iRaq as we've never helped anyone in the middle east unless it had to do with oil or downright broken international law. Why now? Why iRaq? Why not iRan? Why not Palestine? Why aren't we sweeping Pakestan? Saudi Arabia still produces a really big bunch of really bad terrorists and we haven't done anything there. indonesia, the Philippines (where we have a base for christ's sake) Bush is being biased with his power. He's only going after the easy and publicly idiotic dictator that has all the oil that his daddy couldn't get rid of when he had the chance. No protestes during Bosnia because of all the murdering, Clinton sent troops there.

Do you realize how uneducated this post makes you sound? Even Alan Colmes said that people of this opinion are idiots! Bush 41 was not given power to remove Saddam. This has nothing to do with oil, and we are going after the #1 priority first. You really need to listen to the retoric of you opinion before insulting yourself with it.


I'm not against ridding the world of Sadaam, I'm skeptical of the 1) timing (bad public opinion for pres, need war to get support). 2) Economy is just as bad as Iraq's 3) Deficit is growing faster then Bush's vocabulary. Just a lot of things about this war that make you wonder about the reasonings. That's what some democrats debate about (like me). Also, keep in mind a lot of those protestors aren't democrats, they are green peace and other independant parties. Probably some of the same fanatics that protested the World Trade Organization thruout the world.

Do you hear yourself! Our Economy is just as bad as Iraq's. If you debate these topics, I hope you don't win much. If so, you need to stop debating your neighbors 4 year olds. Man, no offense here, ok. But you sound so far of left, that the democrats don't want to have associations with you. Get real. Why do you have to lower yourself with inuslts of Bush? personal insults? Is it because you know that really don't have a leg to stand on, so you have to do the real mature thing and insult his vocabulary?


As for marching and protesting, you are right about one, they do pick and choose. No one protested the Taliban, it's teatment of women, public assination, destroying the budda statues, etc. There's nothing to portest yet with N Koera but that such be next on the list. I feel more stongly about dealing with them then Saddam.

Anyways, just hope it's a short quick war with little US casualties. :rolleyes:

As for you ideology here. If you are 6' tall, and three guys on your block want to kill you. One has 30 friends, is 5'5" tall and is armed with baseball bats. The other is 6'0 tall has 5 friends and is armed with stones. The last is 6'5 and armed with only his fists, but is a pro boxer. Who do you go after first?

peterjhill
Mar 18, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait a minute. You claim that you served in the Gulf War, and then you come up with a quote like that. That completely destroys your credibility. How on earth can you compare the landing on Normandy to invading a 3rd world country with a 10th rate army? How. That is total BS, and quite frankly very offensive to me since I had family at D-Day.

Iraq will be war, so yes there will be casualties, but nothing on the scale of difficulty, or loss that we saw at Normandy.

I was refering to the death toll in general, not limiting it to only the U.S. casualties. 10,000 allies died on D-Day, according to USA Today, over 85,000 Iraqi's died.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq055.htm

I don't love Iraq, and definitely think that Saddam is a bad guy, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel bad for the average wife or mother of some Iraqi conscript that is forced either to fight or to face punishment, and is then killed by a daisy cutter or moab.

Sure they can try to surrender, but then they risk retaliation against their family. War is not pretty. I stand by my statement. Watch Saving Private Ryan, Imagine yourself being an american soldier and coming across a mass of Iraqi corpses who had no chance to surrender when death fell on them from the sky.

What if we never get Saddam. Again, we punish the Iraqi people but the real enemy gets away like he did in 1991 where we killed ten times as many that died on 9/11.

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2003, 10:44 AM
Now, wasn't somebody yelling at me just the other day when I predicted a new round of jingoism?

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Now, wasn't somebody yelling at me just the other day when I predicted a new round of jingoism?

First off, my opinion is not jingoism. Read the definition. I have my opinion from my degrees, my experience in the military, and family experience.

:)

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by peterjhill
I was refering to the death toll in general, not limiting it to only the U.S. casualties. 10,000 allies died on D-Day, according to USA Today, over 85,000 Iraqi's died.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq055.htm

I don't love Iraq, and definitely think that Saddam is a bad guy, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel bad for the average wife or mother of some Iraqi conscript that is forced either to fight or to face punishment, and is then killed by a daisy cutter or moab.

Sure they can try to surrender, but then they risk retaliation against their family. War is not pretty. I stand by my statement. Watch Saving Private Ryan, Imagine yourself being an american soldier and coming across a mass of Iraqi corpses who had no chance to surrender when death fell on them from the sky.

What if we never get Saddam. Again, we punish the Iraqi people but the real enemy gets away like he did in 1991 where we killed ten times as many that died on 9/11.

Ok, wait. 10,000 allies on one day vs. 85,000 Iraqi's over a month long war. Do the math. Secondly, what about the battle of Verdun, will this be that bad. There is not any way to avoid the effects of war on the troops minds, but the fact is we are going, we need to go, and no, we will not leave Saddam in power when this is all said and done. He is gone.

Zion Grail
Mar 18, 2003, 11:54 AM
Anyone remember this quote?


"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians... all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "YOU helped this happen!"

"I totally concur!"

Yeah, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Well, turns out Mr. Robertson (who is VERY conservative) is heavily invested in a gold mining operation in Liberia, which has an extremely brutal dictator in charge (Charles Taylor). This dictator is as bad as (and likely worse than) Saddam. Even more, about the same time Robertson was blaming 9/11 on, and again I quote, "... the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians...", Taylor was harboring al-Qaeda operatives in exchange for a million-dollar payoff. (Source: Washington Post, 12/29/02)

Damn terrorist-loving dictatorship-supporting hyper-conservatives.

Get the drift? This whole "[insert liberal or conservative organization here] supports [insert terrorism, dictatorship, communism, or anti-American buzzword of the day here]" thing... It goes both ways.

The trick here is to remember that almost no one in either camp personally advocates terrorism of any kind. Every now and then, though, we find that the few who do take advantage of trusting Americans (liberals and conservatives alike) to fund/support such organizations either against the will/wishes of their average client or, more commonly, without their knowledge.

Thus, this arguement will never go anywhere as we'll probably be bombarding each other with these examples until the end of time, while the average person (liberal or conservative) does not willingly nor knowingly support such organizations.

*whew* That was a much longer post than I originally wanted it to be. At least my Mac/Safari app didn't crash like my Windows/IE machine likely would have. :D

trebblekicked
Mar 18, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
First off, my opinion is not jingoism. Read the definition. I have my opinion from my degrees, my experience in the military, and family experience.

:)

although i don't think you are being jingoistic, there are many, MANY people in America who are. wiping their feet with the french flag, freedom fries, calling protesters unamerican, you name it. wether or not you are is not the point of reily's post (i think). Fact is, if you disagree with the push to war, prepare to be insulted, branded, fired (ask martin sheen about this one), or bullied (toni smith). This nation has indeed gone to jingoism.

also, fox news is anything but fair or balanced IMHO.

As per the thread's subject, organizers need money for these rallies. no political parties are outlawed in the untied states. i don't care who they support. My protest of the war at their rally is not a show of support for their motives. It is simply an expression of disaproval with a specific series of events, and it is pathetic that you or anyone would assume a connection where protesters would support north korea.

>EDIT: Zion, i just read your post. i concur. thread time of death: 12:59.

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
although i don't think you are being jingoistic, there are many, MANY people in America who are. wiping their feet with the french flag, freedom fries, calling protesters unamerican, you name it. wether or not you are is not the point of reily's post (i think). Fact is, if you disagree with the push to war, prepare to be insulted, branded, fired (ask martin sheen about this one), or bullied (toni smith). This nation has indeed gone to jingoism.

Exactly. Not only have I read the definition of jingoism, I was the one who posted it here.

In another thread I asked -- seriously and politely, I thought -- how a person could continue to voice opposition to the president's policies without being accused of not "supporting our troops." I did not get much of a response to that question, but now we have this: anyone who protests this war can automatically be associated with "commy and terrorists [sic] lovers."

But it's not "jingoism." Never that.

peter2002
Mar 18, 2003, 06:30 PM
Fox is only #1 news ratings on cable TV, not broadcast. NBC has the #1 news ratings by a 10 to 1 margin.

Pete

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2003, 06:41 PM
Great I dont even Know if my antenna still works. but i do know that fox usually has someone from both sides instead of just one side. YEAH GO FOX!

Chef Ramen
Mar 18, 2003, 07:11 PM
thousands of missles and bombs were not fired on normandy. there WILL be hundreds/thousands of missles and bombs fired on (mostly) baghdad. Cruise missles, MOABs (which some say are not fuel bombs, but actually neutron bombs), who knows what else.

Backtothemac
Mar 18, 2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Chef Ramen
MOABs (which some say are not fuel bombs, but actually neutron bombs), who knows what else.

Sorry, last post here. Anyone that believe that the MOAB is a neutron bomb is flat out 100% wacko stupid. Sorry, but that is just ass stupid.

Final political thread post.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 18, 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Chef Ramen
thousands of missles and bombs were not fired on normandy. there WILL be hundreds/thousands of missles and bombs fired on (mostly) baghdad. Cruise missles, MOABs (which some say are not fuel bombs, but actually neutron bombs), who knows what else. Also some people say Saddam is a Great guy and real humanaterian, i have even heard some fools say we never went to the moon and it was faked. Take this stuff with a grain of salt and dont be afraid to question.

wsteineker
Mar 18, 2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Take this stuff with a grain of salt and dont be afraid to question.

There's a distinct irony in your words. I should think that someone who tows the party line regarding this war as well as you do would find questioning anything to be severely difficult. Just my $.02.

macfan
Mar 18, 2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Chef Ramen
thousands of missles and bombs were not fired on normandy. there WILL be hundreds/thousands of missles and bombs fired on (mostly) baghdad.

Chef Ramen,
Please read up on your history of the Normandy invasion before posting information that makes you look less than knowledgeable. There was a massive bombardment at Normandy.

Looking at Backtomac's post responding to the same post of yours, looks like you were 0 for 2.

LethalWolfe
Mar 18, 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Chef Ramen
thousands of missles and bombs were not fired on normandy. there WILL be hundreds/thousands of missles and bombs fired on (mostly) baghdad. Cruise missles, MOABs (which some say are not fuel bombs, but actually neutron bombs), who knows what else.


There was a huge naval and air bombardment preceeding the landings at Normandy. Of course the weather sucked and it was 1940's era tech so only a small percentage of the shells and bombs actually landed on target.


Lethal

peterjhill
Mar 19, 2003, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Also some people say Saddam is a Great guy and real humanaterian, i have even heard some fools say we never went to the moon and it was faked. Take this stuff with a grain of salt and dont be afraid to question.

Moderate as flamebait

amnesiac1984
Mar 22, 2003, 09:13 AM
If fox news is so "balanced and two sided", then why is it that it is only what seems like pro war people who sing its praises?

On another note about news. I am appalled at the UK's news reporting on recent anti-war marches. I was at a significantly large peace march here in Bristol on Thursday Night. Firstly this was not planned by any terrorist funding organisation, it was almost unplanned. Word was passed by things like my universities mailing list and a few local alternative news papers.

Secondly, I was at the march, I also watched it on local BBC news the following day. They reported that there were 7 arrests for minor incidents and that it was mostly peaceful except in the area of the M32 junction (main artery coming into Bristol) where incidents were reported of people trying to force there way up the M32. I was there, I was at the M32, what we did was sit down at the intersection and block traffic, about 1000 of us were there because the police had successfully split up the march into several sections. We sat down and chanted and sang peace songs. Then as there was nowhere for us to go the police reversed the traffic up the M32 and allowed the march to continue on up. This is where I left the march and went to the Pub. At this point I had been separated by police horses from my friends. So I left the march thinking that was all that was too it. When I met up with my mates in the pub afterwards the next day I discovered some shocking facts the were not reported in the news. For a start, the major trouble was not at the M32 but in college green across town outside the council buildings. As the march came to an end the police rounded the people on to college green to contain them and allow controlled dispersal. However what the news failed to mention was that actually there were far too many people on this small grassy area and the police were using horses to force people into the centre of it. This became too much for a friend of mine who was close to the edge and he broke through in an attempt to escape. He was chased by a giant galloping police horse and his right thigh was struck by the horses knee and he fell on the concrete, he's not sure but he thinks he was trampled by the horses hind legs, luckily he suffered merely bruises too his legs and a cut on his arm.

Meanwhile a female friend of mine was in a less crushed area and was perhaps in higher spirits. Playfully, and perhaps stupidly she agrees, she stole a policeman's hat and ran away. Okay that was not the brightest thing to do, but, what the police officer then did was run after her rugby tackle her onto the asphalt, and proceed to beat her. I am uncertain of the injuries she suffered as I have not seen her in person since the incident.

I did not here of this until after I had seen the local evening news the next day, and the picture that gave me was of a peaceful protest and I even saw an interview with the police chief patting himself on the back for a job well done, Now that is what i call biased news reporting, and from the BBC as well, its truly shocking!!!

Sorry for my long post but I had to get these things off my chest!

And for those who say thses marches won't make a difference, I think they already have, its because of these protests that bush is under immense pressure to keep casualties to a minimum, this is almost a first for war, and it has so far been successful, but only because so much is at stake for bush and blair if this all goes horribly wrong.

pseudobrit
Mar 22, 2003, 10:22 AM
This is asinine. It paints everyone who's against this war as a communist, and devalues the cause.

Are you seriously convinced that the 30% of Americans opposed to this, the 85% opposed in Britain, Spain, Turkey, et al. are all hard core communists?


Either way, it's a gratuitous assertion. Which, to be fair, can be argued away with an equally gratuitous assertion. So, here you go:

All the people benefitting from this war and supporting it are making out financially like bandits. The crude prices are falling, the stocks are rising, the defence contractors are reaping the joys of death and destruction that they sell. They are all contributors (heavily) to the Republican party, and are especially well connected to the White House staff, many of whom have been executives in defence companies.

If you support this war, you are supporting a new regime of perpetual war that will make the USA so hated that we will have to declare martial law to curtail the terrorist attacks and protests.

So, by proxy (fair play -- it's implied in the commie idea):

if you support this war, you support fascism.

Backtothemac
Mar 22, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
This is asinine. It paints everyone who's against this war as a communist, and devalues the cause.

Sorry, but at this point, I think that the protests boarderline treason. Say I am wrong, or whatever, but I really think it does. Look at the definition of teason as states by the Constitution. I really think they are treason.


Are you seriously convinced that the 30% of Americans opposed to this, the 85% opposed in Britain, Spain, Turkey, et al. are all hard core communists?

More like 21% of Americans, and 51% of Brits as of last week.



Either way, it's a gratuitous assertion. Which, to be fair, can be argued away with an equally gratuitous assertion. So, here you go:

All the people benefitting from this war and supporting it are making out financially like bandits. The crude prices are falling, the stocks are rising, the defence contractors are reaping the joys of death and destruction that they sell. They are all contributors (heavily) to the Republican party, and are especially well connected to the White House staff, many of whom have been executives in defence companies.

This is pure partisan retoric! When Clinton was in Office I 100% supported his decision to go to war in the Balkins. He was right. We had to stop the slaughter. Again, in 96 and 98, I supported him as did most republicans in calling for an invasion of Iraq. The economic impact of war is obvious, but not the only desired goal. I don't even think that it was on the table as a goal!

If you support this war, you are supporting a new regime of perpetual war that will make the USA so hated that we will have to declare martial law to curtail the terrorist attacks and protests.

This is totally illogical. This was is being fought to stop a breading ground for terrorists, and to remove a dictator that kills millions, and to remove his WMD's. Period. Your slippery slope is absurd. Now, the TRUTH about the people that have organized SOME of the protests is TRUTH! Deal with that. That is reality.


So, by proxy (fair play -- it's implied in the commie idea):

if you support this war, you support fascism.
You know, that is the most unintelligent thing that I have ever heard! How can you compare TRUTH about the organizations that are organizing these protests, with an accusation of FASICISM! I served my country, as has every man in my family, and my sister. You sir, are insulting my entire family that has faught for the ability for you to have freedom by calling them Facist! You are insulting the memory of the troops that have died in this conflict.

Posts like yours, that are so absurd are the ones that made me want to stop posting here. But it is the reality that they ARE so absurd that make me post. To point out what others may not. To make it known how people who HAVE SERVED, and have family that ARE SERVING NOW feel about YOUR agenda, propaganda, and flat out LIES!

wsteineker
Mar 22, 2003, 02:46 PM
Hey B2TM, I think I'm finally beginning to see where you're coming from. I have to say that, unlike many of the other members here who seem to support this war as a matter of politics, you genuinely seem to believe that what we're doing is the right thing. Speaking as someone who genuinely believe's that we're not doing the right thing, I say bravo! Good for you! It's hard to stick up for an unpopular position, especially in this situation where tempers run so hot and it seems like every opinion is an unpopular one. Keep up the good work, my friend. :)

pseudobrit
Mar 22, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Sorry, but at this point, I think that the protests boarderline treason. Say I am wrong, or whatever, but I really think it does. Look at the definition of teason as states by the Constitution. I really think they are treason.

[/b]
More like 21% of Americans, and 51% of Brits as of last week.

[/b]
This is pure partisan retoric! When Clinton was in Office I 100% supported his decision to go to war in the Balkins. He was right. We had to stop the slaughter. Again, in 96 and 98, I supported him as did most republicans in calling for an invasion of Iraq. The economic impact of war is obvious, but not the only desired goal. I don't even think that it was on the table as a goal!
[/b]
This is totally illogical. This was is being fought to stop a breading ground for terrorists, and to remove a dictator that kills millions, and to remove his WMD's. Period. Your slippery slope is absurd. Now, the TRUTH about the people that have organized SOME of the protests is TRUTH! Deal with that. That is reality.


You know, that is the most unintelligent thing that I have ever heard! How can you compare TRUTH about the organizations that are organizing these protests, with an accusation of FASICISM! I served my country, as has every man in my family, and my sister. You sir, are insulting my entire family that has faught for the ability for you to have freedom by calling them Facist! You are insulting the memory of the troops that have died in this conflict.

Posts like yours, that are so absurd are the ones that made me want to stop posting here. But it is the reality that they ARE so absurd that make me post. To point out what others may not. To make it known how people who HAVE SERVED, and have family that ARE SERVING NOW feel about YOUR agenda, propaganda, and flat out LIES! [/B]

My dad served during Vietnam. My little brother's in the Honor Guard. So let's dismiss your idea that I'm anti-military and can't understand it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have family in the military.

I stand by what I said on the basis of the reasoning.

The original idea is a gratuitous assertion with flimsy backing, and I've countered it with an equally gratuitous assertion with equally flimsly backing.

Of course what I said is ridiculous. It was a direct counter to what the original post was using the same tactics.

If that's your list of commies proving all peace marchers are commies, then...

Here's a list of dirty fascist NAZIs in the Bush administration. (http://www.rationalenquirer.org/features/portfolio/) That same illogical reasoning means that all anti-peace activists are fascists, right?

Or is there a double standard? Do ridiculous arguments only hold water when they support your point of view?

Backtothemac
Mar 22, 2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
My dad served during Vietnam. My little brother's in the Honor Guard. So let's dismiss your idea that I'm anti-military and can't understand it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have family in the military.

I stand by what I said on the basis of the reasoning.

The original idea is a gratuitous assertion with flimsy backing, and I've countered it with an equally gratuitous assertion with equally flimsly backing.

Of course what I said is ridiculous. It was a direct counter to what the original post was using the same tactics.

If that's your list of commies proving all peace marchers are commies, then...

Here's a list of dirty fascist NAZIs in the Bush administration. (http://www.rationalenquirer.org/features/portfolio/) That same illogical reasoning means that all anti-peace activists are fascists, right?

Or is there a double standard? Do ridiculous arguments only hold water when they support your point of view?

Oh, please! There is no comparison to the two. The organizations that filed for permits are the ones that were quoted here. FACT! To assert that people that are supporting the President are fascist is crazy! The link you posted. How about previous administrations. Sure, all defense companies have political links to the current administration. That is how it works.

macfan
Mar 22, 2003, 08:19 PM
Of course what I said is ridiculous. It was a direct counter to what the original post was using the same tactics.


pseudobrit,
It is often not a good idea to try to counter a post on sees a ridiculous by posting something even more ridiculous, particularly if the contrast with one's other posts is not especially large.

pseudobrit
Mar 22, 2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
It is often not a good idea to try to counter a post on sees a ridiculous by posting something even more ridiculous, particularly if the contrast with one's other posts is not especially large.

Well, the argument doesn't deserve it. You say your dad can beat up my dad and I say nu-uh. Then you tell me about how your dad beat up some other guy so he can too beat up my dad and I still say nu-uh.

It's not worth thoughtful counter-argument because it's not a thoughtful argument to begin with.

You want to prove to me that all the protesters are communists and make a real, valid argument?

Name the percentage of them who are members of the communist party of the USA or have knowingly given money to terrorist organisations.

I dare you to find that statistic. And if it doesn't exist, you can't tell me that the protesters are.

So --- nu-uh.

alset
Mar 24, 2003, 01:47 AM
Y'know, here in the East Bay we have people marching all over the place and congregating because they LOVE THIS COUNTRY and it's YOUTH and would rather not see our young people MARCHED INTO THEIR GRAVES. It has little or nothing to do with our deep roots in communism (sarcasm, in case anyone misses it).

Ah, I love America! :D

Dan

markomarko
Mar 24, 2003, 11:28 AM
In Edmonton, Alberta we had a march this weekend that numbered 15, 000. I saw senior citizens marching. I saw arab-Canadians marching. I saw christians marching. I saw communists marching. I saw "capitalists for peace" marching. I saw people of every stripe at this event. There definitely was some organization to this event, but most of the participants I spoke to attended because of their personal conviction that the war is not necessary, nor justified.

Many were offended at some of the opportunists trying to co-opt the event (Unitarian Church, New Democrat Party, Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Lenininsts, etc). It disgusts me to see people politically cashing in on this war. And it's not just the lefties doing this either...

Here, in my province, our premier sent a note to US ambassador to Canada, Paul Celucci, stating that, "on behalf all Albertans" he supports the American leadership and decision to invade Iraq. These opportunists make me sick.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by markomarko
In Edmonton, Alberta we had a march this weekend that numbered 15, 000. I saw senior citizens marching. I saw arab-Canadians marching. I saw christians marching. I saw communists marching. I saw "capitalists for peace" marching. I saw people of every stripe at this event. There definitely was some organization to this event, but most of the participants I spoke to attended because of their personal conviction that the war is not necessary, nor justified.

Many were offended at some of the opportunists trying to co-opt the event (Unitarian Church, New Democrat Party, Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Lenininsts, etc). It disgusts me to see people politically cashing in on this war. And it's not just the lefties doing this either...

Here, in my province, our premier sent a note to US ambassador to Canada, Paul Celucci, stating that, "on behalf all Albertans" he supports the American leadership and decision to invade Iraq. These opportunists make me sick.

Like I have said before. If you are against war, fine. That is not a problem with me, and I will die defending your right to say that. Just do so with honor, and dignity.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Like I have said before. If you are against war, fine. That is not a problem with me, and I will die defending your right to say that. Just do so with honor, and dignity.

Or not. The Constitution does not have an "honor and dignity" clause in the 1st amendment. If it did, we might as well throw it out.

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Like I have said before. If you are against war, fine. That is not a problem with me, and I will die defending your right to say that. Just do so with honor, and dignity.

So how do you reconcile this statement with your previous comment about the protests being treason.
I really think [the protests] are treason.

It is the right of people to speak their minds, but if they speak out against the war, they'll be tried for treason??

Taft

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:11 PM
While I'm at it BTTM, I think you need to answer this question.

You make a grossly hyperbolic statement accusing the protesters as traitors to our country because you don't like their actions. Then, a few posts later, you deride psuedo for making a satirically hyperbolic statement against our president because psuedo doesn't like his actions.

Do you see the irony here? You should try to hold yourself to the same standards as you hold the liberals on these forums.

Taft

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Taft
So how do you reconcile this statement with your previous comment about the protests being treason.


It is the right of people to speak their minds, but if they speak out against the war, they'll be tried for treason??

Taft

Like I have said. To protest is not treason. The actions of some of the protestors is boarderline treason. Not full out, go to jail treason, but borderline. Big difference. I have said that 100 times in the last two days alone.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Or not. The Constitution does not have an "honor and dignity" clause in the 1st amendment. If it did, we might as well throw it out.

No it doesn't, but it does say not to commit treason. Again, some are borderline on that in their protests. Would they not have more moral legs to stand on if they did so with dignity?

Or does acting like a jackass give you credibility? Not you, you know that is not directed at you.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Like I have said. To protest is not treason. The actions of some of the protestors is boarderline treason. Not full out, go to jail treason, but borderline. Big difference. I have said that 100 times in the last two days alone.

What would make it full-blown treason?

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Taft
While I'm at it BTTM, I think you need to answer this question.

You make a grossly hyperbolic statement accusing the protesters as traitors to our country because you don't like their actions. Then, a few posts later, you deride psuedo for making a satirically hyperbolic statement against our president because psuedo doesn't like his actions.

Do you see the irony here? You should try to hold yourself to the same standards as you hold the liberals on these forums.

Taft

I do hold myself to an even higher standard. My statement was based on fact. That they are some actions and statements that are borderline treason. That is all. It was fact based on the description of treason in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Now, his statement was not based on fact but opinion. Big difference don't you think?

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
What would make it full-blown treason?

Good question. Full blown treason would be to say that one supports Saddam. To give aid and comfort to the enemy. Going to Bagdad and protesting right now would be a good example of it. Michael Moore saying "long live Saddam" that would do it. The statements that I made show how there is a link between some of the protests, and it becoming propaganda for Saddam. That is giving aid and comfort to them. Becoming propaganda for a regime that will use it to resolve their troops and cause American lives. Borderline. Not full out.

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I do hold myself to an even higher standard. My statement was based on fact. That they are some actions and statements that are borderline treason. That is all. It was fact based on the description of treason in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Now, his statement was not based on fact but opinion. Big difference don't you think?

No I don't think that. But you can change my mind.

Present to me the law that states that actions performed by the protesters is in any way treason, and prove to me that what you said is not based on opinion. Because the fact that these people have not been arrested makes it pretty clear that they have NOT committed treason by any stretch of the imagination and that your saying so is stating your opinion.

IF they broke the "anti-treason" laws in the constitution, they should go to jail, no? Then why aren't they there?

Simple, they didn't commit treason! Fancy that.

Taft

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Taft
No I don't think that. But you can change my mind.

Present to me the law that states that actions performed by the protesters is in any way treason, and prove to me that what you said is not based on opinion. Because the fact that these people have not been arrested makes it pretty clear that they have NOT committed treason by any stretch of the imagination and that your saying so is stating your opinion.

IF they broke the "anti-treason" laws in the constitution, they should go to jail, no? Then why aren't they there?

Simple, they didn't commit treason! Fancy that.

Taft
Taft, go back and reread my posts. I never said they did. I said it was borderline treason. Again. Iraq shows the protesters calling Bush a terrorist on Iraqi TV. They do it daily. They show the protesters saying this is about oil. They show it on Iraqi TV. They use the images and sounds of the protesters to strengthen the control of the regime over their people, and over their military. That is giving comfort to the enemy. That is borderline at best, but to me, as an ex soldier. It is borderline.

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Good question. Full blown treason would be to say that one supports Saddam. To give aid and comfort to the enemy. Going to Bagdad and protesting right now would be a good example of it. Michael Moore saying "long live Saddam" that would do it. The statements that I made show how there is a link between some of the protests, and it becoming propaganda for Saddam. That is giving aid and comfort to them. Becoming propaganda for a regime that will use it to resolve their troops and cause American lives. Borderline. Not full out.

There is no borderline treason. What you call borderline treason is simply your interpretation of the law which is not supported by our legal system. In other words, it is your opinion.

There is no constitutional definition of borderline treason. It is really clear cut, either they are supporting our enemies in a time of war, or they are not. To say that their actions are close to treason is to say that a would be sexual harrasser's actions are borderline sexual harrassment. That can't be. Either they are tried for sexual harrassment, or they are not.

Taft

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Good question. Full blown treason would be to say that one supports Saddam. To give aid and comfort to the enemy. Going to Bagdad and protesting right now would be a good example of it. Michael Moore saying "long live Saddam" that would do it. The statements that I made show how there is a link between some of the protests, and it becoming propaganda for Saddam. That is giving aid and comfort to them. Becoming propaganda for a regime that will use it to resolve their troops and cause American lives. Borderline. Not full out.

So saying, "I hope Saddam Hussein is unharmed (long life)" would be treason?

Going over to Iraq with a humanitarian mission (say, Catholic Charities) and giving humanitarian aid to her people and treating her wounded citizens and buring her dead men, women, children and soldiers would be treason?

markomarko
Mar 24, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Like I have said before. If you are against war, fine. That is not a problem with me, and I will die defending your right to say that. Just do so with honor, and dignity.

Thanks, but I wasn't really seeking your stamp of approval...:rolleyes:

The post was made only to show that not all protesters are commies, and that the reported death of moderate dissent has been greatly exaggerated.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Taft
There is no borderline treason. What you call borderline treason is simply your interpretation of the law which is not supported by our legal system.

Would anyone say that dealing with the enemy by bankrolling their war machine and shipping industry while Americans are dying on the battlefield is treason?

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, go back and reread my posts. I never said they did. I said it was borderline treason. Again. Iraq shows the protesters calling Bush a terrorist on Iraqi TV. They do it daily. They show the protesters saying this is about oil. They show it on Iraqi TV. They use the images and sounds of the protesters to strengthen the control of the regime over their people, and over their military. That is giving comfort to the enemy. That is borderline at best, but to me, as an ex soldier. It is borderline.

I understand what you are saying, but it ISN'T fact. Borderline treason does not exists except in the minds of people holding a certain opinion. There is no borderline treason law.

And, like with so many other things lying in the realm of opinion, there are many people who disagree with your interpretation of borderline treason. I am one of them.

To me, it appears that you don't like the fact that protests are allowed to happen during war. The price we pay for free speach may well allow Saddam to play some psychological game with his people. That is a price. But if this was a war that was really worth fighting, there might not be so many protesters.

The one thing you have to admit is that there is not universal support for this war. Therefore, people will be expressing their dissent. This is something Saddam used to his advantage even before the war, but it is inescapable. I don't agree with this war. I WILL voice my opinion. There may be a price for that, but I believe the price is worth it.

Taft

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Would anyone say that dealing with the enemy by bankrolling their war machine and shipping industry while Americans are dying on the battlefield is treason?

Certainly it is treason. But its not borderline treason. It is real and unconstitutaional treason. There are many ways in which a person could commit real treason. The kind forbidden by US laws. Voicing opinions different than the opinions of the government isn't illegal. Accusing the government of bad acts is not illegal. Calling Bush an idiot is not illegal.

What BTTM is talking about is not something stated in law, but rather HIS interpretation of a law, and his interpretation alone. If it were a valid legal interpretation of the law, someone would be trying to silence the protesters under the law. That is not happenning, and if it does, the case will be struck down (at some level) by the courts.

Taft

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:39 PM
You know, it's going to be very interesting when/if the bodies start piling up (and it's sadly looking more and more like a "when")

I predict that the mantra will move from "support our troops by shutting your commie mouth -- you're giving comfort to the enemy" to "honor the fallen by shutting your commie mouth -- he died so you could have freedom of speech, so shut up!"

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Certainly it is treason. But its not borderline treason. It is real and unconstitutaional treason. There are many ways in which a person could commit real treason. The kind forbidden by US laws. Voicing opinions different than the opinions of the government isn't illegal. Accusing the government of bad acts is not illegal. Calling Bush an idiot is not illegal.


I would like to hear some of the pro-war opinions to this question.

Again:
Would anyone say that dealing with the enemy by bankrolling their war machine and shipping industry while Americans are dying on the battlefield is treason??

lmalave
Mar 24, 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by shakespeare
Oh, good god. Please tell me they're not number one. Oh, please.

If they are - well, that certainly explains some of Americans' willful blindness. I am angrier and angrier about how little the average American understands about the world.

I don't know if Fox News is #1 overall, but I know that O'Reilly is higher rated than Larry King.

I think Fox News definitely has a conservative slant - it is part of their strategy to get market share, since they know that conservatives are in the majority right now. If you flip channels between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, though, you'll see that Fox is much more biased.

Personally, I think MSNBC is much more balanced. Folks like Chris Matthews and Ashleigh Banfield seem to me to be moderate conservatives. And Lester whats-his-name may be conservative or liberal, but I have never to my recollection seen him reveal his views on the air, which is the way news should be covered. By and large MSNBC comport themselves with the utmost journalistic professionalism, and even MSNBC's resident loudmouth, Chris Matthews, is a much less polarizing figure than O'Reilly.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
I think Fox News definitely has a conservative slant - it is part of their strategy to get market share, since they know that conservatives are in the majority right now. If you flip channels between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, though, you'll see that Fox is much more biased.


Let's clear something up: conservatives are NOT the majority of Americans. Their tradtional base is something like 30% They get ratings, therefore they get disproportionate coverage on TV and radio.

Another thing: I think all US TV networks are being used as US propoganda. Iraq's ambassador to the UN was giving an interview on CNN and very quickly Ari Fleischer came out and gave a 5 minute press conference, which meant that CNN turned off the interview.
--
About 45 minutes later: Tariq Aziz is giving a speech on Iraqi TV. Fleischer quickly comes out again and gives an equally pointless press conference, which again preempts the Aziz speech. I had to turn to BBC America to continue to hear Aziz, as all the US networks were covering Ari the forked-tongue.

Our meda is just as "state-run" as Iraq's

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sorry, but at this point, I think that the protests boarderline treason. Say I am wrong, or whatever, but I really think it does. Look at the definition of teason as states by the Constitution. I really think they are treason.


(Just to throw a little fuel on the fire... :D )

So, since you brought up treason... what would you think of those same "protesters" if they suggested that we impeach the president because they don't like him or what he's doing? Would that be borderline treason?

(You know where I'm going with this... :D )

lmalave
Mar 24, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Great I dont even Know if my antenna still works. but i do know that fox usually has someone from both sides instead of just one side. YEAH GO FOX!

CNN had Crossfire at least a decade before the Fox News channel even existed.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
(Just to throw a little fuel on the fire... :D )

So, since you brought up treason... what would you think of those same "protesters" if they suggested that we impeach the president because they don't like him or what he's doing? Would that be borderline treason?

(You know where I'm going with this... :D )

I know where you are going with it. Had that been during a time of war, then yes, I would say that was borderline treason.

Taft, and everyone else. I am saying that if you look at the law, you could make a case that SOME, please hear that SOME of the acts taking place in the name of protests could be considered treason. A case could be made in a court of law that SOME of them are. Not all, some.

Please hear that. SOME!

mcrain, I know you don't agree, but as an attorney, and someone who is schooled in the Constitution, you have to agree that my point has some validity to it, does it not?

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Taft, and everyone else. I am saying that if you look at the law, you could make a case that SOME, please hear that SOME of the acts taking place in the name of protests could be considered treason. A case could be made in a court of law that SOME of them are. Not all, some.

OK, I'm willing to entertain the idea. Can you point me to a site where I can view the law? Also, can you name an instance where you think a protester crossed the line into treason?

Taft

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 02:55 PM
From the constitution:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Taft

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, and everyone else. I am saying that if you look at the law, you could make a case that SOME, please hear that SOME of the acts taking place in the name of protests could be considered treason. A case could be made in a court of law that SOME of them are. Not all, some.

Please hear that. SOME!

mcrain, I know you don't agree, but as an attorney, and someone who is schooled in the Constitution, you have to agree that my point has some validity to it, does it not?

The only case of "treason" that I am aware of is the soldier who threw the grenade at his fellow soldiers. I'm not sure what you are talking about that would rise to "treason" under the U.S. Constitution or USCA.

What do you think the protesters did that would be treasonous or borderline treason?

I did, however, run across this (Note: This is a very very liberal site that poped up in a google search) that I had to chuckle about.

http://www.newusconstitution.org/usc21gg.html

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Taft
OK, I'm willing to entertain the idea. Can you point me to a site where I can view the law? Also, can you name an instance where you think a protester crossed the line into treason?

Taft

I don't have a link, but the Constitution says giving aid and comfort to the enemy will be considered an act of treason.

Now that has to be put through interpratation. The arguement that I have made as to what they are doing is fact. The only opinion is whether it will cost US lives. All of it is fact. Now, if the Iraqi troops see the protests, and it doesn't give them resolve to fight, then no, it is not theoretically. If it does, then it is theoretically treason.

BTW, I am not saying that we should round up the protesters, or stop them, I just wish that they would use a little restraint in their propaganda. Don't say Bush is a terrorist. Don't say we are baby killers. Don't say it is about oil. That inflames the enemy. That is "borderline treason."

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
The only case of "treason" that I am aware of is the soldier who threw the grenade at his fellow soldiers. I'm not sure what you are talking about that would rise to "treason" under the U.S. Constitution or USCA.

What do you think the protesters did that would be treasonous or borderline treason?

I did, however, run across this (Note: This is a very very liberal site that poped up in a google search) that I had to chuckle about.

http://www.newusconstitution.org/usc21gg.html

I think that some of the choice of words in the protests which are being used as propaganda by the Iraqis to strengthen the resolve of their troops is the problem. i don't think it is a clear case, but I think the arguement can be made.

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now that has to be put through interpratation. The arguement that I have made as to what they are doing is fact. The only opinion is whether it will cost US lives. All of it is fact. Now, if the Iraqi troops see the protests, and it doesn't give them resolve to fight, then no, it is not theoretically. If it does, then it is theoretically treason.

Don't say it is about oil. That inflames the enemy. That is "borderline treason."

Oh, I see. You're wrong on this BTTM. If I say something that completely incites the Iraqis and they go on a rampage and kill a thousand soldiers, I have NOT committed treason. There is no such thing as a "theoretical" treasonous act.

That being said, there are actions that are analogous to treason. The case you set forth has a consequence that could be described as parallel to the consequences of a treasonous act. The parallels to what you are talking about are very similar to the parallels in describing the republican congress' shutting down of the government and impeachment of Clinton.

(edit to finish thought) None of those cases are in fact treason, but the end results, death of soldiers and overthrow of the US government, are the intended end result of an actual treasonous act.

(edit because my brain just turned on... finally) Treason requires an overt act witnessed by two people. In other words, there has to be some act intended to be treasonous and intended to bring about the levying of war against the US, or in adhering to its enemies, or in giving them aid and comfort.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Oh, I see. You're wrong on this BTTM. If I say something that completely incites the Iraqis and they go on a rampage and kill a thousand soldiers, I have NOT committed treason. There is no such thing as a "theoretical" treasonous act.

That being said, there are actions that are analogous to treason. The case you set forth has a consequence that could be described as parallel to the consequences of a treasonous act. The parallels to what you are talking about are very similar to the parallels in describing the republican congress' shutting down of the government and impeachment of Clinton.

mcrain, does that not differ? Clinton was not at war, and they did not commit acts that aided or supported an enemy. The republicans acted up an actual crime by the President. Now whether people agree or not, it was a crime. Remember it was Janet Reno that called for the Independent counsel.

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 03:07 PM
This is important language:

... or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ...

Notice that "adhering to their enemies" and "giving them aid and comfort" are part of the same condition.

So giving aid and comfort by itself is not a punishable act. They have to be adhering to the enemy.

From dictionary.com:

adĚhere
v. adĚhered, adĚherĚing, adĚheres
v. intr.

1. To stick fast by or as if by suction or glue.
2. To remain devoted to or be in support of something: adhered to her beliefs.
3. To carry out a plan, scheme, or operation without deviation: We will adhere to our plan.

Basically they have to have a certain devotion or be in cahoots with the enemy.

I can, for instance, think of a situation in war where a US troop comes upon a lone injured enemy on the side of the road. The soldiers pick up the injured enemy and give him comfort and aid before imprisoning him.

The situation you are talking about is not treason. First, there is no intentional aim to aid the enemy. There is no devotion or desire to see the enemy succeed against our troops.

Second, the protesters are not, by their actions or any planned involvement with the enemy, aiding their enemy. The protesters actions are individual expressions which are taken (often out of context) by the enemy and used to further their own needs. They are not giving aid, rather their actions are being exploited by the enemy.

In fact, using your logic, you could argue that anyone in front of a camera could be guilty of treason. I mean Saddam could simply use creative editing to produce footage that would be advantageous to his troops, couldn't he? President Bush on Iraqi radio: "Our...army...is...weak!" Treason?

This is not an argument that could possibly hold up in a court of law. Maybe a case would slide past a jury (is this kind of crime even tried in front of a jurt?), but I'm confident it would be successfully appealed. The ability to have free speach in a time of war depends on it.

Taft

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Taft
The ability to have free speach in a time of war depends on it.

I wouldn't be so confident about that. The current SC would probably side with Jr. on just about anything. Heck, they elected him. :D

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
mcrain, does that not differ? Clinton was not at war, and they did not commit acts that aided or supported an enemy. The republicans acted up an actual crime by the President. Now whether people agree or not, it was a crime. Remember it was Janet Reno that called for the Independent counsel.

We don't have to be at war in order for a person to commit a treasonous act. At least not in the piece of the constitution I quoted.

Taft

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 03:10 PM
Ok, I give. I will then say that SOME of the acts by protesters are tasteless. How is that?
:p

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I wouldn't be so confident about that. The current SC would probably side with Jr. on just about anything. Heck, they elected him. :D

HEY HEY HEY, don't make me report you for flamebait :eek: :D

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I wouldn't be so confident about that. The current SC would probably side with Jr. on just about anything. Heck, they elected him. :D

Yeah. Sometimes I forget. :D

But I think that so many people in this country value free speech that such a case would have to be overturned. Even by the most conservative court. I mean, even conservatives want the freedom of speech, right??

Taft

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, I give. I will then say that SOME of the acts by protesters are tasteless. How is that?
:p

THAT I can agree with. :D

I could've agreed with that before the war started, in fact. The radical fringe always makes news and they rarely portray the majority of any major movement. I could pick out a few conservative nutjobs to prove my point...:D

Taft

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, I give. I will then say that SOME of the acts by protesters are tasteless. How is that?
:p

I completely agree.

Flamebait? I was only joking! :)

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I completely agree.

Flamebait? I was only joking! :)

I was too ;)

wow, intense discussion that was based on emotion in the end, and we had the same feeling.


See the political discussions thread is good for something!

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
mcrain, does that not differ? Clinton was not at war, and they did not commit acts that aided or supported an enemy. The republicans acted up an actual crime by the President. Now whether people agree or not, it was a crime. Remember it was Janet Reno that called for the Independent counsel.

Bush is not at war either. Congress has not declared war. Was Iraq not our enemy during Clinton's impeachment? Your argument doesn't withstand the stink test.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Bush is not at war either. Congress has not declared war. Was Iraq not our enemy during Clinton's impeachment? Your argument doesn't withstand the stink test.

Actually, we are at war. According to the War Powers act, the President can engage in war for 60 days without a declaration of Congress. So, yes, it does uphold the stink test.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Actually, we are at war. According to the War Powers act, the President can engage in war for 60 days without a declaration of Congress. So, yes, it does uphold the stink test.

But Clinton was launching Tomahawks and bombing raids at Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there anything in the Constitution or War Powers Act that gives a numerical limit to how many troops or units the president can commit before he's engaging in an official undeclared war? No? Then there's no difference between a few Tomahawks and 300,000 troops.

If an undeclared war is as good as a declared one, then there's no difference between Clinton '98 and Bush '03, and by your standards, the Republican party gave aid and comfort to the enemy and was guilty of borderline treason.

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
But Clinton was launching Tomahawks and bombing raids at Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there anything in the Constitution or War Powers Act that gives a numerical limit to how many troops or units the president can commit before he's engaging in an official undeclared war? No? Then there's no difference between a few Tomahawks and 300,000 troops.

If an undeclared war is as good as a declared one, then there's no difference between Clinton '98 and Bush '03, and by your standards, the Republican party gave aid and comfort to the enemy and was guilty of borderline treason.

No, this is the most absurd comparison that I have ever heard in my life! Clinton committed a federal crime. Bush has not. That is the difference. I am not going to rehash the Clinton arguement. If you want to do that, go pull up the old Macs and politics threads. There is plenty there for you.

Protesters at time of war I have conceeded is not borderline treason, but just bad taste.

Clinton commited a crime. He launched missiles then, and I fully supported my President in his decision.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Protesters at time of war I have conceeded is not borderline treason, but just bad taste.


And I still contend that it is not bad taste or treasonous, but in fact vital to our nation.

If we decided to attack Spain after Pearl Harbor, I'd have expected the "greatest generation" to call the same foul that the protesters today are.

If no one would stand up for what they believe in because dissent were either illegal or even bad taste, all a leader would have to do is keep a war going indefinitely and the message from the bad taste protesters could be ignored.

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Actually, we are at war. According to the War Powers act, the President can engage in war for 60 days without a declaration of Congress. So, yes, it does uphold the stink test.

Surely war has to be declared? Can you be "at war" on the quiet?

Backtothemac
Mar 24, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Surely war has to be declared? Can you be "at war" on the quiet?

Only Congress can declare war. However, the White House can engage in conflict for 60 days without a declaration of war.

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Only Congress can declare war. However, the White House can engage in conflict for 60 days without a declaration of war.
Presumably that's not a war, then?

mcrain
Mar 24, 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Presumably that's not a war, then?

No, the president can, within his powers as executive and commander in chief, wage war without congressional approval. However, if the conflict goes in excess of 60 days, congress has to get involved.

Why?

To declare war?

NO!!

To pay for it! Vietnam was never a war. Remember? Congress had to get involved to figure out how to pay for the "conflict."

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 10:59 PM
It's usually called a "police action"

It's really war without the strings...