RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


anti war peeps can relax....(37 posts)

anti war peeps can relax....ClydeTri
Apr 2, 2003 12:09 PM
our war effort is not causing much impact..according to the Iraqi Information minister...and most anti-war people believe their side more than our military.. his comments:

Al-Sahaf also said the Iraqis have "shot down a lot of those cruise missiles" and said war's impact was "trivial."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.sahaf/index.html

And since this came from the left sided CNN it must be true...we would discard it as fiction had it been posted on foxnews, correct?
I don't get your point ...sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 12:19 PM
... are you trying to be humorous offering a link to the Iraqi propoganda machine, or are you really expressing your views? If the latter is correct, I think you should back off the conspiracy drugs.
I get it ;O)Live Steam
Apr 2, 2003 12:32 PM
The Left want it both ways. Each day they try to play gotcha during the CENTCOM briefing - looking for holes in the coalition planning and ways to make it look as if this war is costing more casualties and other losses to the coalition, than are being reported. They do this to make it appear as if the Administration and the Military didn't do their homework and rushed into this in some way, in an effort to attack GW. I guess you feel the Left should be watching Iraqi TV for a more accurate assessment of what is happening in the field. I agree! They can get all the air blown up their collective skirts from watching the Iraqi Minister of Misinformation on Iraqi TV :O)
CNN vs. Fox yesterdayCaptain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 12:55 PM
I was home ill yesterday and flipped between FoxNews and CNN. Although I don't want to rehash prior arguments we have had contrasting the two, but I noticed a distinct difference.

At noon Saddam was supposed to be on Iraqi TV, and as we all know the Information Minister was on instead. FoxNews was flabbergasted and opined that this was odd that Saddam would not address his people directly. Meanwhile, CNN had a long discussion with a Muslim editor of theirs that explained for 10 minutes how this was a "powerful message from Saddam" and it meant nothing that he wasn't the one who presented the statement.
was the Muslum leader saying ...sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 1:05 PM
... it was a powerful message because Iraqis believe Sadaam is still alive, or that it was a powerful message because the words would still encite rebellion against the 'Zionist agressors'?

I'm not challenging the words were said, but wondering what context they were said in.
was the Muslum leader saying ...ClydeTri
Apr 2, 2003 1:12 PM
I was flipping back and forth on that yesterday also...in reality, the talking head that CNN went to was totally out of touch with reality..he was commenting as if it was Saddam whom had spoken...they had to correct him after he had delievered his review of the speech he had obviously not even watched...
I don't get it.Jon Billheimer
Apr 2, 2003 1:22 PM
During business travel I watch CNN quite a bit. I haven't heard or seen anything that would be considered left-leaning. Most of the stuff is either on the scene vignettes from "embedded" reporters or really bland, endless rehashing of what virtually everyone knows already, from an explicitly American point of view.

BTW, Debkafile is speculating that Saddam and his entourage might be on the run. Hope springs eternal, you know!
Liberal or Conservative ...sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 2:23 PM
... sounds like nothing more than downright bad journalism.
was the Muslum leader saying ...Captain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 1:34 PM
She wasn't a Muslim leader; I think she was an editor of CNN. Her context was that it would encite rebellion against the Zionist aggressors. When the anchor mentioned the possibility that it was not Saddam's statement, she kept ignoring it and emphatically stated that it was his statement. It was weird analysis IMHO.
sounds like it (nm)sacheson
Apr 2, 2003 2:24 PM
Your 1st mistake is watching CNN or Fox ..jrm
Apr 2, 2003 3:05 PM
NTI, the BBC and the canadian BC are far more objective.. All FOX and CCN are doing is propping up the agenda of Israel and the Neoconservative war machine...
Your 1st mistake is watching CNN or Fox ..Jon Billheimer
Apr 2, 2003 3:13 PM
That's kind of how I've seen CNN, only in a kind of bland, uncritical format. But some posters here keep referring to CNN as left-leaning. If CNN is left-leaning according to some, I'd really hate to see what they'd consider right-leaning news coverage. I've never seen CNN feature side-by-side contrasting coverage, analysis, or editorial opinion. CBC does this routinely. In fact on the CBC National News they routinely feature a panel of commentators with varying, although not necessarily opposite, views following the "straight" news reporting segment.
JRM & his continued anti-semitisimAlpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 3:28 PM
Can you make a post without blaming the Jews for once? There are a lot of complaints that can be made against the media and the war. You seem to blame the Jews.

The US and Allies took out Hitler 60 years ago. But the hate in his heart lives in the pathetic minds of people like you. That is very sad.

Doug, as out new moderator, if you have the power to delete posts I strongly suggest you delete JRM's trash. It is one thing to have an open debate, but condoning hate speech like JRM's on this forum is wrong. There are pleanty of Jewish members who visit this site. They should not have read comments like this.

I am sure there are plenty of Neo-Nazi sites he is more than welcome to post on.

Mike Y.
Criticism of Israel is not anti-semetic.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 3:47 PM
Many Jewish people are also opposed to the policies of Israel.

Note that in this particular post, jrm did not even criticize Isreal, he merely stated that Israel has an "agenda" that is propped up by CNN and FOX. That is not an insult or attack, nor is it obscene, and it cetainly isn't "hate speech".

Stating that Hitler's hate lives on in jrm's "pathetic mind" is definitely a personal attack.
Yes it is a personal attack and I stand by it 100%Alpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 4:04 PM
JRM has a pathetic hate filled mind. He has a history of making anti-semitic posts. This is not just one isolated post. It is his pattern on these boards. That is whi i put "Continued" in my original email.

I do not think Anti-semitism or racism belongs on forums like this.

Mike Y.
Then please review the site guidelines.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 4:27 PM
General Guidelines
  • No insults or personal attacks
  • No profanity or obscene language
  • Debate - yes! Arguments or "flame wars" - no!
  • Post solicitations to buy or sell products only in the "Marketplace" section
Your post clearly runs afoul of the first and third clauses, and I think that trying to run someone off the board because they disagree with you is pretty obscene. Still, I don't think you should start lobbying Doug to kick you off the board. I don't think that people in general need to be protected from opinions that they don't agree with (or just opinions that I don't agree with).
Czar, you lobbying to get me kicked off would be an honorAlpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 5:31 PM
You like to defend some pretty evil people. First you were making excuses for Saddam for a few months. Now you seem to be on JRM's side despite his history of antisemitism. You seem to spend hours searching left wing websites for questionable news sites to support your left wing websites, spend a few minutes looking through archives and look at who you are defending.

JRM does not post opinions, he posts hate. This is a commercial site. People are obviously going to be turned off if they read racist or antisemitic posts. Some things are a lot more offensive than profanity.

Mike Y.
I think people will be more turned off. . .czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 6:06 PM
. . .by a discussion forum that serves a safe haven for selective political correctness.

I did spend a few minutes searching the archives, and found little in the way of a history of "hate speech" (at least not in recent posts). Maybe the search function isn't finding it. What I did find is a lot of criticism of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians on his part along with a lot of shrill, ad-hominem accusations on your part. I don't agree with Israel's policies towards the Palestinians either. Does that make me an hate-mongerer?

Anyway, I am not defending jrm's point of view. I am defending his right to post it without being harrased.

Also, I find it a little odd that you are so sensitive to jrm's posts, when you yourself are constantly harping on the "liberal media conspiracy". I guess you don't know what it used to be called.
I think people will be more turned off. . .sn69
Apr 2, 2003 6:37 PM
Actually he/she/it has in the past made blatant accusations about goofy crap like the "Jewish media conspiracy" and such. I've made my feelings about this person known, and I've also been rather blunt about my opposition to Israel's policies as an American who also happens to be Jewish.

For the record:
1. JRM is a bigot/anti-semite. My guess is that JRM's hatred for other ethnicities and religions is exceeded only by his/her/its hatred of self. Either that or we are being trolled.
2. Criticising Israel is not tantamount to anti-semitism.
3. JRM nonetheless has a right to express his/her/its views on this board or any other public media in America. I would just as willing die for JRM's right to whacked opinions as I would for those whose opinions have value to our society.
4. Doug should NOT pull JRM's posts. Marketplace of ideas...let JRM expose his/her/its hatred for all to see and read.
5. Thank you Mike for your continued support...it's hard to remain level and even-keeled in the presence of this sort of person. Face to face it would be much different, but, alas, the internet provides a modicum of annonymity that in turn provides protection from scrutiny (and a@@ whoopin).
6. Thank you Czar for continuing to remind us of the importance of tollerance. It's something we all need to be reminded of from time to time.

Deep breath and I feel cleansed.
Scott
I think people will be more turned off. . .Alpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 7:34 PM
I guess I am not as tollerant as you Scott. I feel there are certain things that should not be tollerated such as anti-semitism, gay bashing and racism. That is far more offensive than any profanity.

I also feel JRM should come out for once and defend his positions rather than spout the same anti-semetic rhetoric.

I disagree with Czar most of the time, but I respect him. He defends his positions. I have no respect for someone who will make an inflamatory statement and leave it there like JRM has a history of doing.

Mike Y.
That's why I'm starting to suspect a trollsn69
Apr 2, 2003 7:42 PM
or simply a very small mind. In either case, I think JRM exposes his/her/its failings with most posts.

We've developed an interesting community of sorts here, most of whom have varried but well though out opinions. We tend to disagree on a lot of things, but the forum always provides a measure of civility that I find refreshing. I hope we can keep that, even with a stinkin' bottom-feeder lawyer as our moderator. Tee hee.

With most JRM type stuff, I'll keep my yap closed. It's too tempting to fall into the trap. That's not tollerance as much as it is measured response. Like I said, face to face would be quite different....

Incidentally, the reports coming out of Hallah really bug me, perhaps moreso than the blue-on-blue engagements. Still, I don't have "up close and personal" combat experience. I'll leave the commentary and speculation on that to LAV25 and Old Ed.

JRM? What ever.....
Scott
That's why I'm starting to suspect a trollAlpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 8:34 PM
I do not think he is a troll hiding behind a screen name. He makes posts on the other boards.

Now we have to see if Czar threatens to try to have you banned four your personal attack on our "stinkin' bottom-feeder lawyer as our moderator." Well then again, I geuss it is all true and I suppose after a century, the stinkin part could work as well.

Mike
Czar, let JRM come out and defend his own postsAlpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 7:03 PM
I do not agree on the bulk of Israel's actions myself. That has nothing to do with this argument though. If he came out and made an argument to that effect, maybe I would feel differently. I have also chastised people who have called you names in the past.

When I complain about the liberal media I cite examples and sources, you know that. JRM obviously has little knowledge of TV reporting if he thinks CNN & FOX are controlled by the same people. Every few weeks JRM comes on to this forum and posts about the "Jewish controlled Media."

Maybe you should stop carrying his water for him and let him defend his posts himself for a change rather than to drop them and hide for a few weeks.

Mike Y.
Mike Y.
I'm not defending JRM's posts, I am offended by your reaction.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 7:24 PM
If someone's posts are so off base, you should have no problem refuting them w/o attacking the person that posted them. Better yet, you should have no problem resting assured that their fallacy is obvious to the rest of us.
I'm not defending JRM's posts, I am offended by your reaction.Alpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 8:22 PM
Your first statement in respect to JRM's post was:
"Note that in this particular post, jrm did not even criticize Isreal, he merely stated that Israel has an "agenda" that is propped up by CNN and FOX."

That is defending his his post.

I believe you have said in the past that you are an athiest. I beleive you have also made statments about not trusting of people who are religious. I think that makes you effects you ability to look at JRM's attacks on a religion for what they are.

Since religion is one of those freedoms given to us, like free speech, maybe you should have some tollerance for that as well. JRM is making an attempting to make this a hostile environment for Jewish people with his pattern of posts.

If you are offended by my statement of "Hitlers hate living in JRM's pathetic mind" I could care less. That comment was not directed at you. I also did not see you defending the people this board who were being called racists or worse for saying Trent Lott should not resign a few months ago.

One of your games is to make an offensive or inflamitory statements or articles. You defend those statements as best you can. I can respect you for that. I have posted articles that are probably considered offensive to some on the left as well. JRM is a coward who posts antisemitic statements and goes and hides.

And if you look at the first response to JRM's most recent post, the fallacy is not as obvious to everyone.

Mike Y.
Sheesh. I am not defending his <i>anti-semitic</i> posts, and. .czardonic
Apr 3, 2003 10:59 AM
a) the post in question here is not anti-semitic and b) the only anti-semitic statement that I could find is a sentiment that, ironically, is the non-politically correct iteration of your own "liberal media conspiracy".

I don't mind a racist being called a racist, so I wouldn't bother defending a Trent Lott apologist unless someone called for their posts to be removed from the board simply because they defended Trent Lott.
u.s. bombs hit a green crescent maternity today.colker
Apr 2, 2003 1:18 PM
who is going to relax? 25 dead..
not exactly liberating the iraqui people..colker
Apr 2, 2003 1:27 PM
"intelligent" bombs my @ss!
AP Report on "smart" weapons.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 1:52 PM
http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/03/31/precision_bombs/print.html
Not a bad synopsissn69
Apr 2, 2003 1:56 PM
www.fas.org

offers a more complete, technically oriented description of the various modifications to the MK 8X-series dumb bombs that make them precision munitions. Likewise, you can learn more about weapons like TLAM, SLAM, Maverick, etc....

Still, "smart" and "surgical" are objective terms assigned by pop culture. No weapon is foolproof and the operators are also subject to fallability.
Assigned by pop culture?czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 2:39 PM
Or assigned to make war popularly acceptable? This seems to be a case where, if the government isn't responsible for a misconception, neither is it going out of its way to dispell it.
Assigned by pop culture?sn69
Apr 2, 2003 2:53 PM
Well, I think the terms "surgical" and "smart" were generally glommed onto by the media in an effort to generate sound bites suitable for quick gratification/regurgitation. The actual terms like lgb, sarh, terrain contour matching, celestial reckoning, and whatnot are a bit of a mouthful for the evening news.

"Smart weapon" is a misnomer in that they don't possess any inherent capability for self-thought or AI. In stead, they are a series of weapons with mid-course and terminal phase guidance capabilities that allow them to turn and maneuver rather than falling or travelling balistically. Some smart weapons are actually quite stupid, whereas some are pretty sophisticated gizmos.

They serve a purpose, though. In WW2 it would frequently take massed formations of bombers to destroy one target with tens of thousands of pounds of free fall bombs. Naturally, a lot of surrounding territory got nailed too. By Vietnam, the first generation of laser guided munitions were fielded, and often single point targets like bridges could be taken out with one or two. Today, advanced generation weapons that are often GPS guided can strike with accuracy measured in inches. That's not to say, however, that things don't interfere. Air, after all, is a non-homogenous fluid, and anything traveling through it (from lasers to EM transmissions to the weapons themselves) is subject to refraction, friction and/or drift.

I think the last sentence of the article you linked said it the best--the terrible dichotomy of warfare and such....
Look at source: "Jane's Air-Launched Weapons"Captain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 2:15 PM
The 10% figure is much higher than what I have been reading. The article was written as if the military is agreeing with "Janes Air-Launched Weapons" 10% figure, but I can see that the quotes they used were tactically placed in the article.

Also, yesterday when I was watching the war news, the U.S. said that all munitions were accounted for, and the market blast looked more likely that it was caused by Iraqi fire. This is also contrary to Jane's article. We should know more in another day or two.
The article makes the sources clear.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 2:36 PM
And it is clear that the military is neither confirming nor denying anything.

"Since the Pentagon isn't sharing data on hits and misses, Hewson and other analysts base their predictions of accuracy on anecdotal evidence and data from previous wars.

A Canadian military assessment of laser-guided bomb accuracy during the Kosovo campaign in 1999 showed that 60 to 70 percent hit their targets, Hewson said. Since NATO faced tougher air defenses and weather in that campaign, he said he figures the current combination of laser- and satellite-guided bombs are hitting targets 75 to 80 percent of the time."

I'm sure that all munitions are accounted for. That does not mean that collateral damage is accounted for.
One thing worth mentioning here...sn69
Apr 2, 2003 2:56 PM
All of that AAA fire going up has to come down somewhere. The Iraqis did mass damage to their cities in the last Gulf War with the stuff. Hell, even the British did in WW2. It's simple physics.

I'm not saying it wasn't one of ours, but it stands to reasons that all that hot lead has to come down eventually.

Of course, from the counter-point of circular argument's sake, one could also assert that if we weren't fighting this, the Iraqis wouldn't be lobbing 37mm and 57mm high explosive shells into their skies, and so on and so forth....
FALSE statementCaptain Morgan
Apr 2, 2003 1:42 PM
1. The bombs did NOT hit the hospital; it hit a target across the street.

2. NO deaths reported by the Red Cross.

I think you are watching a little too much Iraqi TV or al Jazeera.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.hospital.attack/index.html
I'll relax when we achieve peace, and not just in Iraq. nm4bykn
Apr 2, 2003 1:35 PM