Home› A Moving Train

Wanna see some propganda?

RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
edited September 2007 in A Moving Train
Behold....this is what it looks like: Make sure to click on the cheesy graphic folks...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wiran118.xml
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.

http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    It makes you sick thinking about this stuff. What's sadder is people never learn and will swallow it up.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    Why would they be stupid enough to bomb oil sites and leave them as the only viable source, that would just beg the States to slam some artillery into them in the name of democracy and regime change. Oh and privatize the Iranian oil fields.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    sorry to break uo your little party here but do you find this article to be completely made up?
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    jlew24asu wrote:
    sorry to break uo your little party here but do you find this article to be completely made up?

    Jlew have you read any books on propaganda yet? do you relise it still happens today?
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • Puck78Puck78 Posts: 737
    jlew24asu wrote:
    sorry to break uo your little party here but do you find this article to be completely made up?
    welcome to the telegraph, the most important tory (conservative) newspaper of the uk. Ah: and they take themselves seriously
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    sorry to break uo your little party here but do you find this article to be completely made up?


    Why were you one of the many in the States that actually believed Saddam could hit the west coast better yet the midwest. ha ha ha ha ha

    Go get em tiger!
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ok great, no one lies the source I got it. is the story made up?
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ok great, no one lies the source I got it. is the story made up?

    Jlew let me ask you a question, if they completely lied about Iraq and indeed as is now stated they went for oil. Tell me why do you think they want to go to Iran?
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    spiral out wrote:
    Jlew let me ask you a question, if they completely lied about Iraq and indeed as is now stated they went for oil. Tell me why do you think they want to go to Iran?
    I don't think they do. I think bush/cheney are all talk when they threaten Iran. now instead of replying to all my posts with a question, how about answering mine?
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    the only reason iran hasn't been invaded is because the fuck up in afghanistand and iraq ... having said that the only reason iran is STILL an option for this war admin is because how pathetic americans are in making their gov't accountable ...
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    even flow? wrote:
    Why were you one of the many in the States that actually believed Saddam could hit the west coast better yet the midwest. ha ha ha ha ha

    Go get em tiger!

    nope, and thats the first time I heard of that. nice try.

    i'll ask again. is this story made up?
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    jlew24asu wrote:
    nope, and thats the first time I heard of that. nice try.

    i'll ask again. is this story made up?

    like most things ... it's a recipe of a few things ... maybe documentation from the 80's that might have shown missles targeted at US locations ... then filtered and refurbished for leakage in order to promote an agenda ...
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris wrote:
    like most things ... it's a recipe of a few things ... maybe documentation from the 80's that might have shown missles targeted at US locations ... then filtered and refurbished for leakage in order to promote an agenda ...


    ok how about the direct quotes from an Iranian general?


    "Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," said Gen Mohammed Hassan Koussechi.

    "If the United States is saying that they have identified 2,000 targets in Iran, then what is certain is that it is the Americans who are all around Iran and are equally our targets," he told the official IRNA news agency.


    Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:
    nope, and thats the first time I heard of that. nice try.

    i'll ask again. is this story made up?

    The story isn't made up, but it's tone is way more threatening than necessary. If you read what the Iranians are saying, it's nothing more than, "they declared their targets, we have the capability of striking back"....boo hoo.

    In the graphic, they just had to throw in speculation about a nuclear warhead, without giving any evidence as to WHO believes the missiles "to be undergoing modifications to extend range and carry nuclear warheads." Who said that? It doesn't say it in the article, does it? The graphic gives an OPINION without base...none of the sources they talk to mention nuclear warheads on the missiles, and Iran continues to deny that is the reason they're enriching uranium.

    So ya...propaganda...conditioning people to think it's worse than it is...so that it doesn't feel so wrong if/when they decide to do strategic air strikes.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Drowned Out wrote:
    The story isn't made up, but it's tone is way more threatening than necessary. If you read what the Iranians are saying, it's nothing more than, "they declared their targets, we have the capability of striking back"....boo hoo.
    I completely agree. without the boo hoo part.
    Drowned Out wrote:
    In the graphic, they just had to throw in speculation about a nuclear warhead, without giving any evidence as to WHO believes the missiles "to be undergoing modifications to extend range and carry nuclear warheads." Who said that? It doesn't say it in the article, does it? The graphic gives an OPINION without base...none of the sources they talk to mention nuclear warheads on the missiles, and Iran continues to deny that is the reason they're enriching uranium.

    So ya...propaganda...conditioning people to think it's worse than it is...so that it doesn't feel so wrong if/when they decide to do strategic air strikes.
    speculation about a nuclear warhead? so you believe Iran want to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes?
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    Drowned Out wrote:
    If you read what the Iranians are saying, it's nothing more than, "they declared their targets, we have the capability of striking back"....boo hoo.

    Now now, no one is allowed to defend themselves from attack from the USA it's just not the done thing.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:


    speculation about a nuclear warhead? so you believe Iran want to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes?

    who am I to say? who is anyone to say? Only they know...
    I think that maybe, just maybe...if the rhetoric and agression in the middle east was toned down, it wouldn't even be considered a problem. oh wait....depends what Israel has to say, I s'ppose.

    Dipolomacy, inspections, etc etc....there are other options.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    spiral out wrote:
    Now now, no one is allowed to defend themselves from attack from the USA it's just not the done thing.

    ;)...oh it's done...that's just the excuse they wait for to send in ground troops
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Drowned Out wrote:
    who am I to say? who is anyone to say? Only they know...
    I think that maybe, just maybe...if the rhetoric and agression in the middle east was toned down, it wouldn't even be considered a problem. oh wait....depends what Israel has to say, I s'ppose.

    Dipolomacy, inspections, etc etc....there are other options.

    Iran is defying UN resolutions, not just the US and Israel.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ok how about the direct quotes from an Iranian general?


    "Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," said Gen Mohammed Hassan Koussechi.

    "If the United States is saying that they have identified 2,000 targets in Iran, then what is certain is that it is the Americans who are all around Iran and are equally our targets," he told the official IRNA news agency.


    Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."

    no one has ever been misquoted before? ... or have their words taken out of context ... plus, there's probably a translation thing too ...

    just remember of all the bs that was thrown out there pre-iraq ... it's the same recipe ... besides ... 2,000 km won't even come close to us soil ...
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Iran is defying UN resolutions, not just the US and Israel.
    They are posturing because they know the US doesn't give a shit about UN resolutions, or the results of their inspectors, and have proved it in the recent past.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Drowned Out wrote:
    They are posturing because they know the US doesn't give a shit about UN resolutions, or the results of their inspectors, and have proved it in the recent past.

    I agree, but the fact remains. the US and Israel arent the only countries who doesnt want Iran to enrich uranium
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I agree, but the fact remains. the US and Israel arent the only countries who doesnt want Iran to enrich uranium
    I guess the natural question now is:
    Do you think it's the responsibility of the US, or the UN, to do something about it?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Drowned Out wrote:
    I guess the natural question now is:
    Do you think it's the responsibility of the US, or the UN, to do something about it?

    the last thing I want is War with Iran. I would love to say the UN but they really cant do shit to Iran.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the last thing I want is War with Iran. I would love to say the UN but they really cant do shit to Iran.

    You're probably right...but the US is going to bury itself economically with it's policing policies...I dont' find it that disimilar to the USSR trying to win the arms race. Pouring bad money after bad money. And making enemies along the way....
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Drowned Out wrote:
    You're probably right...but the US is going to bury itself economically with it's policing policies...I dont' find it that disimilar to the USSR trying to win the arms race. Pouring bad money after bad money. And making enemies along the way....

    I'm looking forward to 2008. bush has built up too much hatred around the world, even though he believes he is doing the right thing to protect americans.

    a new change in washington is whats needed and its coming. Personally I'd like to be friends with Iran and Iraq. like I said before, I really really want to go visit. the history there is amazing.

    problem still remains though with Iran having a nuke. although sometimes I feel, even they arent dumb enough to ever use one.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I'm looking forward to 2008. bush has built up too much hatred around the world, even though he believes he is doing the right thing to protect americans.

    a new change in washington is whats needed and its coming. .

    Two problems with this - it is not just Bush, it's the ongoing US foreign policy for decades and decades that has built up hatred. Bush's boldness and bravado has only accelerated it. And, I don’t think any of the candidates interested in changing the status quo (read: foreign policy, not just Iraq/Iran) are going to win. I think the US needs to become isolationist, if only for a few years (hopefully longer), focus on humanitarian aid (sadly) as a PR campaign, and UN intervention with "rogue" states...even if it means lost security...long term gain for short term pain.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    problem still remains though with Iran having a nuke. although sometimes I feel, even they arent dumb enough to ever use one.

    Ding ding! We have a winner! We're all going M.A.D. again….
    history repeats…only this time the enemy is so much more vague and widespread, that there is only one country/superpower truly risking breaking their own backs...
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Drowned Out wrote:
    Two problems with this - it is not just Bush, it's the ongoing US foreign policy for decades and decades that has built up hatred. Bush's boldness and bravado has only accelerated it. And, I don’t think any of the candidates interested in changing the status quo (read: foreign policy, not just Iraq/Iran) are going to win. I think the US needs to become isolationist, if only for a few years (hopefully longer), focus on humanitarian aid (sadly) as a PR campaign, and UN intervention with "rogue" states...even if it means lost security...long term gain for short term pain.

    I support this. although its sad that many people will suffer around the world with the UN handling rogueness.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    my prediction: in the end Iran will get a nuke, then get sanctioned, then become more isolated with dictators in control... they will go down the cuba/north korea route. though Russia and China will probably keep them propped up.
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Iran is defying UN resolutions, not just the US and Israel.


    what?!?!

    The UN has called the US occupation of Iraq illegal.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
Sign In or Register to comment.