Who will protect us from Fox News? 53 replies

Please wait...

Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#41 16 years ago

NiteStrykerIncorrect. They had quite a few ties to terrorism. While it didnt do anything to utlilize those ties, it did have ties. It harbored terrorists. After 9/11, we declared war on Terrorism, and those that harbor them. Iraq harbored terrorists. They had the ability to supply them with weapons.[/QUOTE] It harboured terrorists? So do many Western countries including the US, Canada, Britain and pretty much any other country on the planet. Knowingly and unknowingly every country harbours terrorists. I like how you said they had the ability to supply terrorists with weapons. I thought that was all taken care of during the Afghanistan War of the 1980s and the CIA's training and supply of weapons to people like Osama bin Laden. Iraq had little to do with terrorism linked to its government. Sure, it supplied Palestinian 'terrorists', but so does every Arab state, like Iran and Syria, who openly shake hands with the likes of Hizbollah. Iraq was a pointless war, end of discussion. The only reason the US government has left to use in justifying the war was the removal of Saddam, a tyrant like any other Middle Eastern ruler from a Western point of view.

[QUOTE=Peeping Tom]Heh, In Canada, you can get Al-Jazeera, but not Fox News

Its only heavily censored to protect our Western eyes, so no cable network will carry it or they are responsible for any legal action against it and the censorship of what is 'innapropriate'.




Mihail Advanced Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#42 16 years ago
IrrelevantFox news is not extreme right. Al Jazeera is extreme left. However, I don't think we should censor either news casting group. Let people watch Al Jazeera, go for it. And anyone that sais Fox news is extreme right has a couple rocks rolling in their brain. Yes they are right, but CNN and others are very much left, so why don't we censor all news groups? This is ridiculous.

Ha, Fox is Extremely Right.




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#43 16 years ago
NiteStrykerIncorrect. They had quite a few ties to terrorism. While it didnt do anything to utlilize those ties, it did have ties. It harbored terrorists. After 9/11, we declared war on Terrorism, and those that harbor them. Iraq harbored terrorists. They had the ability to supply them with weapons.

Uh, k, but we're talking maybe a few dozen terrorists, if that, in Saddam's Iraq. I've only ever heard of one alleged al-Qaeda camp in all of the country. But ok, let's take that at face value. If we now look at all the terrorists in the country now, including everyone who has ever take a shot at a US marine or Iraqi policeman, what do we have? Thousands of terrorists, and recruitment on the rise. 900 American dead, about a hundred 'coalition' fatalities, hundreds of Iraqi police killed: that points to a lot of terrorists. So many that the Iraqi interim government has been forced to consider an amnesty, because there's just so damn many of them. If they were a disaffected minority, I doubt they'd be compromising.

Also, the media has grossly overreported every little attack on soldiers, which gives the impression that there are attacks on every square inch of Iraqi soil. That is false. Its mostly in baghdad.

There is a lot of violence in Baghdad, yes; but most of the bloodshed is in the Sunni triangle, which is a much bigger area than that. And if you look at this map, you can see that Baghdad is outside the triangle. Meaning that, if what you say is true about the violence being in Baghdad, the danger area is even bigger than my map indicates.

1006-06.gif

As for the terrorists. Moof is right; you played right into their hands. Three years ago, if an Arab terrorist wanted to kill an American, he had to fly a plane into New York. Today, he just has to cross the border, or even just open his front door, and start shooting. The terrorists are in a stronger position now than ever. These 800 American soldiers were not casualties of the war with Iraq, they were needless casualties of terrorism that could have been prevented. And I mean needless. A hundred and fifty dead Americans liberated Iraq; those who supported the war could say that they at least died for something. But the other eight hundred were victims of terror, a terror that was created by America's actions, and enabled by America's presence. They did not have to die, and terror would have been weaker today, without their sacrifice.

America could have continued to fight terror as it did before Iraq, with high-tech weaponary, special forces, local co-operation, and above all low casualties, and would have achieved far better results. The terrorists would have gradually been picked off, they would have little chance to harm Americans and their allies, and their recruits would dry up, and see them for the sad deluded little men they really are.

But then instead of all that, you chose to invade Iraq, piss off the Arab world, disband a large, trained, armed, and above all discontented army all over the countryside, and then place 175'000 American soldiers at the centre of all this anger and resentment. And the worst part is, even the most optimistic neo-cons can only point to handful of Iraq-alQuaeda connections; fewer than Iran, fewer than Syria, fewer than Afghanistan (remember them?) and fewer than your ally Saudi Arabia. So, even if your tactics of invading rather than infiltrating a terrorist-harbouring state had been right (which they weren't), you didn't even pick anything like the most dangerous one! And that's the tragedy; you are not even killing potential 9/11 hijackers, you are killing Iraqi nationalists and anti-American Arabs who, while misguided, would never have been in a position to harm you, had America never come to their country. This bloody war of attrition isn't even wearing down the kind of terrorists that America should fear - you're taking down Iraqis who probably have never even been outside of Iraq. New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Miami are no safer today than they were a few years ago, and you have lost hundreds of men for nothing.

Instead of a scalpel, you used a sledgehammer, and worse, as regards the war on terror, you used it on the wrong country - and now the terrorists are better for it, and America worse.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#44 16 years ago
OctovonIt harboured terrorists? So do many Western countries including the US, Canada, Britain and pretty much any other country on the planet. Knowingly and unknowingly every country harbours terrorists. I like how you said they had the ability to supply terrorists with weapons. I thought that was all taken care of during the Afghanistan War of the 1980s and the CIA's training and supply of weapons to people like Osama bin Laden. Iraq had little to do with terrorism linked to its government. Sure, it supplied Palestinian 'terrorists', but so does every Arab state, like Iran and Syria, who openly shake hands with the likes of Hizbollah. Iraq was a pointless war, end of discussion.

Im talking about the fact that Iraq KNOWINGLY harbored terrorists and did nothing to stop them.

And thats not the end of discussion. Iraq was not a pointless war, its not over. Only history can judge the validity of the war. After mabey 100 years, we will kno all of the facts of the war in iraq. It was not pointless because

(1) There was a point, but it turned out to possibly be a misinformed one (2) We got Saddam (3) We are still looking for weapons




!moof

Note to self: Find pants.

50 XP

19th October 2002

0 Uploads

2,321 Posts

0 Threads

#45 16 years ago

Well, hell, nitestryker, half the world knowingly harbors terrorists. Do you want to invade them, too?




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#46 16 years ago

Yes, in fact.

After we were attacked on 9-11, the US began a war on terrorists.

And its not half the world. Thats blatiently wrong, Check your facts.




Big {Daddy}

Get in!

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

1,708 Posts

0 Threads

#47 16 years ago

NiteStrykerYes, in fact.

After we were attacked on 9-11, the US began a war on terrorists.

And its not half the world. Thats blatiently wrong, Check your facts.

You would be surprised... some of America's closest allies "harbour" terrorists.




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#48 16 years ago

We even have some terrorists in a country as small as Belgium...




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#49 16 years ago

Yes but I mean countries harboring terrorists, as in supplying them with money, weapons, etc, not as in terrorists sneaking in and staying for a long time.

MihailHa, Fox is Extremely Right.

No its not. Its labled 'right' by all of the liberal media outlets (i.e the New York Times), because a conservitive label, traditionally, has hurt news groups. Fox is sometimes right, but mostly, its fair coverage. It talks about the bad and good of Iraq, not just the bad, like all other news media.




Big {Daddy}

Get in!

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

1,708 Posts

0 Threads

#50 16 years ago

So your saying Saddam Hussein was personally supplying arms to Al Queda. Got any solid proof of this?