Jump to content

~Won't see this on Fox News~


glutes
This topic is 4956 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

This should be the rule: If you can't handle seeing what really goes on in a war, maybe you don't deserve to support it.

 

Here is your uncensored truth: http://www.fallujahinpictures.com. Real pictures from Fallujah. Real pictures of war. Brutal and explicit and shocking and just one site of many. Be warned: this is very graphic content. Horrific and deeply disturbing. No censorship. No suppression. No Photoshop. No bogus shots of happy Iraqi children running in the streets begging for candy from American soldiers. No night shots of Marines in bitchin' night-vision goggles bustin' down the door of some palace and then cheering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you're fortunate enough to get the BBC or any other foreign news channel on your cable/satellite TV system, you'll see a very different kind of news coverage than you will on Fox or the scared-shitless U.S. networks. Mostly it's uncensored and bloody, especially on channels here in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America, where people aren't as squeamish about reality. Or just read the foreign press online. You can get lots of info that way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>This should be the rule: If you can't handle seeing what

>really goes on in a war, maybe you don't deserve to support

>it.

>

 

War is never pretty, it never will be. Why would one expect this one to be, IT'S WAR. WWl, WWll, anywar, not just ones this country has fought, are not pretty. The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest and brutal wars and it wasn't pretty either. The bomb falling on Japan wasn't pretty. Wars are not meant to be pretty, but it never spots them from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>War is never pretty, it never will be. Why would one expect

>this one to be, IT'S WAR. WWl, WWll, anywar, not just ones

>this country has fought, are not pretty. The American Civil

>War was one of the bloodiest and brutal wars and it wasn't

>pretty either. The bomb falling on Japan wasn't pretty. Wars

>are not meant to be pretty, but it never spots them from

>happening.

 

When I read this, it sounds like a basic lecture that a History teacher would give to a Sixth Grade class. And yet, sadly, that's what is necessary to respond to the juvenile pap that passes here for political discussion.

 

Every single war ever fought in human history - including the most unambiguously justifiable ones - entails human suffering, death, destruction, and photographs such as the ones posted here. Because both just and unjust wars inevitably entail these things, they are not and cannot be logically used as proof that a war is unjust.

 

But that's all you read here from the anti-war geniuses - "people are dying in Iraq" - "Bush has blood on his hands" - "look at these photographs of people bleeding" - as though these things are "arguments" proving the war to be unjust.

 

As you point out, even the most just wars - whether it be the American Revolutionary War or WW2 or the War against the Taliban - entail exactly the same things. But those who are emotionally adolsecent or cognitively stunted are capable of nothing more than "People are dying, so the war is bad."

 

The reality is, they aren't concerned about people dying. Their only real objective is to undermine American strength and American interests, and using these childish, emotional appeals is the only way they can think of to do that. I think we saw quite recently just how preposterously ineffective that tactic is.

 

Isn't it interesting how they never post photographs of the mass graves in Iraq - and how they never talk abut the hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein - and how they never express grief over the tens of thousands of victims of Islamic terrorist bombings - and how they never acknowledged the millions and millions of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq who are able to participate in a democratic process for the first time ever, thanks to the United States?

 

That's because they don't actually care about human suffering, human rights or human life. They just pretend to care about these things in order to promote their only goal of attacking George Bush and the U.S. Given that the only "bad acts" they care about are ones perpetrated by the U.S. - while all other "bad acts' are met with total silence or even approval from them - could anything be more obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Musharraf: Iraq war has made world 'less safe'

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a mistake that has made the world a more dangerous place, but a swift withdrawal would make matters worse, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf tells CNN. Musharraf was in Washington over the weekend for a meeting with President Bush and is now in London for talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair today.

 

 

Dougie: This is a illegal and immoral war. If the press would only show what really goes on over in Iraq, maybe less people here would be so giddy to wave the flag and chant "USA! USA!".

All that Fox, and most of the other majors, seem to produce, are santized versions of what we are doing over there.

~~Wonder what Tillman family is thinking right now~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worse, the press and Congress knew the proposed war would be illegal and immoral BEFORE authorizing it and they all shut up. If they'd demonstrated the slightest bit of leadership by helping educate Americans about why the war would be illegal and immoral BEFORE letting Bush get us into it, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation today.

 

In my book, BushCo are war criminals, but there's blame a-plenty to spread around. BushCo couldn't do it alone. They had lots of helpful accomplices, some of whom are now sorry about their role in the whole mess. Better late than never, but even better would have been before put America on the highway to hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one forced Pat Tillman to go all gung-ho and join the Rangers and volunteer to go to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and Osama and shoot Muslims. He died there from "friendly fire". What that has to do with Iraq or how that is Bush's fault is really incomprehensible.

 

One thing I'm absolutely sure I won't be seeing on Fox News is President Kerry's inaugaration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: ~Won't see this on Doug's News~

 

"Every single war ever fought in human history - including the most unambiguously justifiable ones - entails human suffering, death, destruction, and photographs such as the ones posted here."

 

Can't wait to see the photos of the Battle of Hastings! Didn't William the Conqueror moon the troops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>No one forced Pat Tillman to go all gung-ho and join the

>Rangers and volunteer to go to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda

>and Osama and shoot Muslims. He died there from "friendly

>fire". What that has to do with Iraq or how that is Bush's

>fault is really incomprehensible.

>

>One thing I'm absolutely sure I won't be seeing on Fox News is

>President Kerry's inaugaration.

 

And I don't think you will ever see it anywhere...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>No one forced Pat Tillman to go all gung-ho and join the

>Rangers and volunteer to go to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda

>and Osama and shoot Muslims. He died there from "friendly

>fire". What that has to do with Iraq or how that is Bush's

>fault is really incomprehensible.

 

Hawkster:

Tillman died because of fratricide, if you can call that 'friendly fire'.

It is ALL Bushs' fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Hawkster:

>Tillman died because of fratricide, if you can call that

>'friendly fire'.

>It is ALL Bushs' fault.

 

LOL!!! That's all this idiocy deserves.

 

Although, it does give rise to the foundations for a nice, new song:

 

Today, some woman was driving her car, and the road was wet and she skidded off the road and died. It is ALL Bushs' fault.

 

Someone was in the hospital yesterday and died of cancer. It is ALL Bush' fault.

 

Over the weekened, my sister had diarreah. It is ALL Bushs' fault.

 

My dog just farted. It is ALL Bushs' fault.

 

Lots of people died in the Civil War. It is ALL Bushs' fault.

 

The lyrics can use some work, but I think it nicely captures the juvenile stupidity that passes for "liberal thought."

 

It is ALL Bushs' fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to these wars, it is Dubyas fault. Your dog & I have both gotten flatulence from Bush.

Now here is some math for you & Dougie:

 

 

A Catastrophe Calculator

 

by Paul Craig Roberts

On Dec. 6, Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld promised four more years of death and destruction in Iraq. Assuming the war continues to cost the U.S. taxpayers $6 billion per month – not including reconstruction costs, fat no-bid contracts for the Bush administration's major contributors, and replacement costs of the military equipment that is being blown apart and worn out – that comes to $288 billion. Add that sum to the $149 billion the war has already cost U.S. taxpayers for a total of $437 billion.

 

Turning to the human toll, from March 20, 2003 to December 7, 2004 (approximately 21 months) the Pentagon says 1,280 U.S. troops have been killed and 9,765 wounded in Iraq. The Pentagon's wounded figure conflicts with the report from the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, that as of Thanksgiving week the hospital has treated almost 21,000 Americans injured in Iraq. According to the hospital, more than half were too badly injured to return to their units.

 

Assuming no escalation in the insurgency, a continuation of four more years of war would result in another 2,925 U.S. troops being killed for a total of 4,205. Using the Pentagon's wounded figure, 22,320 more U.S. troops would be injured for a total of 32,085. Using the U.S. military hospital's figure, another 48,000 U.S. troops would be wounded for a total of 69,000.

 

Assuming the U.S. is able to keep 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq during Bush's second term, U.S. dead and wounded (Pentagon figure) would comprise 26 percent of the U.S. force in Iraq. Using the military hospital's figure, U.S. dead and wounded would comprise 53 percent of our entire army in Iraq.

 

The present military manpower system cannot provide replacements for these losses. Current troop strengths are being maintained by calling up Reserve and National Guard units and by extending soldiers' tours of duty beyond the contractual period, a practice that U.S. troops are contesting in court. Tens of thousands of careers, marriages, and family finances are being disrupted and destroyed by the commitment of Reserve and National Guard units to war in Iraq.

 

What is Bush achieving in return for such horrendous costs?

 

Bush has destroyed our alliances and the good will of a half century of U.S. foreign policy.

 

Bush has created an insurgency where there was none.

 

Bush has destroyed U.S. prestige in the Middle East and reduced America's support among Middle Eastern populations to the single digits.

 

Bush has made Osama bin Laden a hero and recruited tens of thousands of terrorists to his ranks, while simultaneously alienating Middle Easterners from the secular puppet rulers we have imposed on them.

 

At a minimum, Bush is responsible for between 14,619 and 16,804 Iraqi civilian deaths during the 21 months since the invasion. Compiled from hospital, morgue, and media reports, these figures understate civilian deaths. In keeping with Islam's quick burial requirement, many Iraqis were buried in sports fields and in back gardens during protracted U.S. assaults on urban areas. A recent report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since March 20, 2003. This figure does not include the large number of Iraqi deaths from the embargo and U.S. bombing for more than a decade prior to the U.S. invasion.

 

Projecting the reported Iraqi civilian deaths for four more years of U.S. occupation produces a figure of 51,621 civilians killed as "collateral damage." Projecting The Lancet's figure produces a figure of 328,571 civilian deaths by the end of Bush's second term.

 

Then there are the civilian injured, for which there appear to be no figures. If we assume the same ratio of killed to wounded for civilian deaths as holds for the U.S. military, the reported death figure gives a civilian wounded figure of 392,320. The Lancet estimate gives a wounded figure of 2,497,139.

 

The ratio of 7.6 wounded U.S. troops for each soldier killed is probably low for calculating civilian Iraqi wounded. U.S. forces travel in armored vehicles, are protected with helmets and body armor, and are not on the receiving end of artillery and massive bombs that kill everything in a quarter-mile radius. The ratio could easily be 10 or 15 wounded Iraqi civilians for every one killed.

 

Did the Americans who reelected Bush know that the president who will admit to no mistake is locked on a course that will squander a half trillion dollars for no purpose other than to kill and wound between 36,290 and 73,205 U.S. troops, with "collateral damage" to Iraqi civilians ranging from 443,941 to 2,825,710 dead and wounded?

 

If Saddam Hussein is a "mass murderer," what does that make President Bush and those who reelected him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

SAN FRANCISCO (AP)- Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

 

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

 

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

 

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

 

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

 

Among other information contained in the documents:

 

_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

 

_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

 

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

 

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

 

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Hawkster:

>>Tillman died because of fratricide, if you can call that

>>'friendly fire'.

>>It is ALL Bushs' fault.

>

>LOL!!! That's all this idiocy deserves.

>

>Although, it does give rise to the foundations for a nice, new

>song:

>

>Today, some woman was driving her car, and the road was wet

>and she skidded off the road and died. It is ALL Bushs'

>fault.

>

>Someone was in the hospital yesterday and died of cancer. It

>is ALL Bush' fault.

>

>Over the weekened, my sister had diarreah. It is ALL Bushs'

>fault.

>

When I read that Bush has an approval rating of 23 percent, I often wonder just who are these idiots. Who are these one in four people that can't connect the dots and see the picture. Thanks for pointing out that you morons are still out there and still dangerous. I use idiots and morons because you use the word liberal and expect us to think that is something bad. Another case of taking a term and twisting it to right wing liking, kind of like the death tax instead of the estate tax. So from now on, I propose that the opposite of liberal should be moron so it is clear, concise and leaves no doubt of the disdain we all should feel for people who try to impugn people by calling them liberal, as though it is an insult.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest showme43

Webster's II

 

Liberal: adj. 1. Generous. 2. Abundant: ample. 3. Not literal: loose 4. Of, pertaining to or based on the liberal arts. 5. Repectful of the ideas or behaviors of others: tolerant. 6.Favoring democratic reform and the use of governmental resources to effect social progress. 7. LIBERAL. Of or belonging to a political party that advocates liberal views.

 

My fellow Americans, I've got no problem being any of that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraqi Football Captain calls for US withdrawl!

 

Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds unite to hail cup-winning heroes

BUSHRA JUHI AND CHRIS BRUMMITT

 

"THIS is not just about football, this is more important than that. This has brought great happiness to a whole country. This is not about a team, this is about human beings."

 

So said Jorvan Vieira, Iraq's national football team coach, yesterday after his side achieved one of sport's great fairytale moments, beating the favourites Saudi Arabia 1-0 in the Asian Cup final in Jakarta to provide a rare moment for celebration in their war-torn homeland.

 

In the 71st minute of the match, Iraqi captain Younis Mahmoud, a Sunni, climbed to head a perfectly-weighted corner from Hawar Mulla Mohammed, a Kurd, into the net.

 

"Those heroes have shown the real Iraq. They have done something useful for the people as opposed to the politicians and lawmakers who are stealing or killing each other," said Sabah Shaiyal, 43, a policeman in Baghdad's Shiite district of Sadr City.

 

"Once again, our national team has shown that there is only one, united Iraq."

 

But after the game, Mahmoud, who was named player of the tournament, said one of the tragedies of the war was that the team would not even be able to return to Iraq with the trophy.

 

"I don't want the Iraqi people to be angry with me," he said. "[but] if I go back with the team, anybody could kill me or try to hurt me."

 

The Iraqi captain, who like the rest of the team wore black armbands to remember the dozens killed by car-bombers following the side's semi-final victory over South Korea on Wednesday, said the United States presence in his homeland was a "problem".

 

"I want America to go out," he said. "Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out. I wish the American people didn't invade Iraq and hopefully it will be over soon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Won't see this on Fox News - Tillmans Mom

 

(CBS) Seven military investigations and two Congressional hearings can’t convince Mary Tillman that the government is telling all it knows about the death of her son, a corporal in the U.S. Army Rangers. In her first television interview, Tillman talks to Katie Couric about her son, Pat Tillman, a former NFL star, and her frustration over the way the government handled information about his death by friendly fire.

 

The interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, May 4, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

And I wonder if anyone told Maliki about this...

 

Israeli jets using Iraq's airspace

Thursday, 10 July 2008 12:15

The US has allowed Israeli jets to use US airbases and fly over Iraqi air space for a likely attack against Iran, Iraqi media say. It is more than a month that some Israeli planes belonging to Israeli air force use the US military bases in Iraq to land and take off, Iraqi Nahrainnet news network said Wednesday, quoting informed sources close to Iraq's Defense Ministry.

 

The activities and traffic of warplanes- especially at nights- has lately increased in the US airbases in Nasiriya southeast of Baghdad and Haditha a city in the western Iraq province of Al Anbar, the Iraqi residents and sources said.

 

http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/84-worldnews/5481-israeli-jets-using-iraqs-airspace.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...