A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
That number rose above 50 percent in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. While that belief has since declined somewhat, for many Americans it still exists. In the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll 33 percent said they believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
As has been repeated over and over, there was and is no evidence of any such link. So why do so many people believe something that just isn’t true?
One reason might be related to the amount of time a person spends following news, something related to education and gender. Forty-four percent of those with a high school education or less say Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, while just 20 percent of college graduates say so. Thirty-eight percent of women think he was part of the attack, compared with 27 percent of men.
Another reason could involve feelings about the Iraq war itself, and the importance of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Iraq War has become a partisan issue - three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam. Consequently, 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.
Bringing down Saddam remains the key accomplishment of the war, according to the public, and those who support the war are more likely to believe this and to credit Saddam with a role in 9/11. Doing so, after all, gives them another justification for the war they support. Opponents of the war don’t have the same reason to blame Saddam.
Making a link between terrorism in general and the war in Iraq also matters. Overall, Americans are more likely to say the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists who might attack the U.S. than to say it is eliminating terrorists. But among those who believe the U.S. is eliminating terrorists by fighting in Iraq, just about half (49 percent) believe that one of those terrorists was Saddam himself!
Among Republicans, blaming Saddam is also related to the vote choice of those who say they plan to participate in a Republican primary or caucus next year. Those who support Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are more likely than those who support John McCain and Mitt Romney to link Saddam with 9/11.
But finally, the belief in what isn’t true brings us back to the quality of information - to where it comes from and how it is perceived. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, has conducted research (reported in this Washington Post article) that suggests that some people who are told something is false may actually remember it as being true. He measured the misperception within 30 minutes of the receipt of the information, and found that misperceptions may actually become stronger over time.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET Jun 28, 2008
Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?
Yes 34
No 56
Don't Know 10
We asked Americans about current events, history and cultural literacy. And we got some pretty disheartening results.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET Sep 4, 2007
Even today, more' than four years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in 10 Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection...'
At any rate, the article you posted doesn't answer any questions. It's just a load of muddled conjecture designed to try and excuse the embarrassing fact of the poll.
I point out that China has blocked access to any outside news sources... you ignore that and say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." That's intellectual dishonesty
Actually, one common form of intellectual dishonesty is distorting what people actually said. For example, I didn't say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." I said something else. You're only able to argue by fudging the facts, and moving the goalposts. Still, everyone reading this has eyes to see quite clearly what you're up to, so keep going. It's amusing if nothing else.
I've been reading, and soul is doing an excellent job exposing your intellectually dishonesty. although I shouldnt give soul too much credit, you make it all too easy
I've been reading, and soul is doing an excellent job exposing your intellectually dishonesty. although I shouldnt give soul too much credit, you make it all too easy
and here is the crucial difference that you will no doubt ignore because it proves you wrong and reveals your hypocrisy... So don't talk to me about freedom. We have the options, we just don't always use them. China doesn't even give the option.
My hypocrisy? Your government, and media, routinely lie to you. Are you denying that?
The fact that some media outlets may have done an about-turn a year or two after the invasion/occupation of Iraq doesn't mean shit.
People in China also have options - and most people don't always use them. Youtube was first blocked about 3 weeks ago. But for everything else there's web-proxy's.
You think Americans are so much freer than people in other countries. I say bullshit.
I believe the government lies to us and the media cosigns it. I'm not denying that at all. Are you denying that there is more censorship in China than in the US? You have to use a web-proxy to get news because the government prohibits you reading it... are you really going to tell me the US censors more than China?
Your last statement is too vague. I think Americans are more free than the average Chinese.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET Jun 28, 2008
Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?
Yes 34
No 56
Don't Know 10
We asked Americans about current events, history and cultural literacy. And we got some pretty disheartening results.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET Sep 4, 2007
Even today, more' than four years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in 10 Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection...'
At any rate, the article you posted doesn't answer any questions. It's just a load of muddled conjecture designed to try and excuse the embarrassing fact of the poll.
The article you posted doesn't support your position. This article shows (as its headline clearly indicates) that Americans are fucking morons. It says nothing about censorship or access to information. The cause of American belief in the Saddam-9/11 connection is not mentioned at all in here. It could be inbreeding, stupidity, fox news, or anything else. But it certainly is NOT due to the fact that we can't read news articles debunking that claim.
I believe the government lies to us and the media cosigns it. I'm not denying that at all. Are you denying that there is more censorship in China than in the US? You have to use a web-proxy to get news because the government prohibits you reading it... are you really going to tell me the US censors more than China?
Your last statement is too vague. I think Americans are more free than the average Chinese.
Propaganda works in many different ways, and on different levels. In my experience people here generally aren't politically minded. The news here is innocuous. The media rarely distorts the facts, or uses the well-worn tactic of selective omission; if a subject is deemed harmful to the powers that be then it's liable to just be outright ignored. People aren't brainwashed, they're just oblivious to many things.
Now, which one of these factors you deem to be preferable is up to you. I'd say it's debatable at any rate. And on the subject of being free, I think it makes little difference.
Propaganda works in many different ways, and on different levels. In my experience people here generally aren't politically minded. The news here is innocuous. The media rarely distorts the facts, or uses the well-worn tactic of selective omission; if a subject is deemed harmful to the powers that be then it's liable to just be outright ignored. People aren't brainwashed, they're just oblivious to many things.
Now, which one of these factors you deem to be preferable is up to you. I'd say it's debatable at any rate. And on the subject of being free, I think it makes little difference.
Do you truly contend that people in the US have access to less information than the Chinese due to censorship?
Funny, but I don't recall you asking me this question before.
I'm only aware of Youtube being blocked. I don't know what else is.
I can't watch Youtube which requires javascript, and because javascript won't work through a proxy I can't watch Youtube vids. Other than that, I'm not aware of anything I can't access.
As for the mainstream news here, I'd say it's just as innocuous and unchallenging as the mainstream news is in the U.S.
If people want information they look on the internet. That's the same here as everywhere else.
Propaganda works in many different ways, and on different levels. In my experience people here generally aren't politically minded. The news here is innocuous. The media rarely distorts the facts, or uses the well-worn tactic of selective omission; if a subject is deemed harmful to the powers that be then it's liable to just be outright ignored. People aren't brainwashed, they're just oblivious to many things.
Now, which one of these factors you deem to be preferable is up to you. I'd say it's debatable at any rate. And on the subject of being free, I think it makes little difference.
I posted the above after your claim that I defended the Chinese government.
Either way, this just shows how desperate you are. Nothing in the above comment points to my defending the Chinese government. Keep trying.
The article you posted doesn't support your position. This article shows (as its headline clearly indicates) that Americans are fucking morons. It says nothing about censorship or access to information. The cause of American belief in the Saddam-9/11 connection is not mentioned at all in here. It could be inbreeding, stupidity, fox news, or anything else. But it certainly is NOT due to the fact that we can't read news articles debunking that claim.
The mere fact of somethings availability doesn't presuppose that anyone's aware of it.
Example: Every year for the past 35 years the U.S has unilaterally vetoed every U.N resolution calling for a peaceful two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine issue. Thais information is available. How many Americans are aware of it?
Have you read 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Deterring Democracy'? You should.
Do you truly contend that people in the US have access to less information than the Chinese due to censorship?
Funny, but I don't recall you asking me this question before.
I'm only aware of Youtube being blocked. I don't know what else is.
I can't watch Youtube which requires javascript, and because javascript won't work through a proxy I can't watch Youtube vids. Other than that, I'm not aware of anything I can't access.
As for the mainstream news here, I'd say it's just as innocuous and unchallenging as the mainstream news is in the U.S.
If people want information they look on the internet. That's the same here as everywhere else.
your last statement is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty. its NOT the same as everywhere else.
'No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]
And how does any of this differ from the laws in the U.S regarding the internet?
'No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]
And how does any of this differ from the laws in the U.S regarding the internet?
1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]
So you're saying that 1,2,4, and 7 are o.k in the U.S?
1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]
So you're saying that 1,2,4, and 7 are o.k in the U.S?
the first part of #7 is no good. the rest are perfectly legal
lol ok dude. I'm sure your 20 posts about China having more freedoms then the US had nothing to do with that. wow, what a hypocrite.
Because I was the first to mention China in this thread and, right?
And nice job with throwing out insults. I wonder how many warnings you've received already for your fucking lame trolling tactics on this board?
spare me. no one insulted you. you clearly are acting like a hypocrite for involving yourself in 4 pages of discussion about China and US censorship. but yet, everyone else is to blame right?
and I havent received any warnings for "trolling tactics" because thats not what I do. I'm involved in several discussions ranging from many topics.
Do you truly contend that people in the US have access to less information than the Chinese due to censorship?
Funny, but I don't recall you asking me this question before.
I'm only aware of Youtube being blocked. I don't know what else is.
I can't watch Youtube which requires javascript, and because javascript won't work through a proxy I can't watch Youtube vids. Other than that, I'm not aware of anything I can't access.
As for the mainstream news here, I'd say it's just as innocuous and unchallenging as the mainstream news is in the U.S.
If people want information they look on the internet. That's the same here as everywhere else.
1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]
So you're saying that 1,2,4, and 7 are o.k in the U.S?
Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.
wow guys, thanks. I was really curious to read about who was more free - China or the US - as opposed to what I originally posted in the topic. At any rate, I hope you guys do enjoy this article (more specifically, soul and jlew): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8015763.stm
Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.
So planning to overthrow the government is o.k, along with inciting racial hatred? Are you sure about this?
People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.
Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.
call it whatever you like. the land is in dispute. two parties want the same land.
What I call it is irrelevant. The law says the land belongs to Israel. Therefore there is no dispute. Another example of you trying to justify Israel's messianic ethnic cleansing campaign. Get it Soulsinging?
Nowhere did he ever say anything remotely like this here or anywhere else, and you know it.
The ongoing problems in the region: i.e, settlement expansion, i.e, ethnic cleansing. Get it?
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.
So planning to overthrow the government is o.k, along with inciting racial hatred? Are you sure about this?
People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.
Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.
Looks like you're right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
'The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Comments
Nice try.
The following is taken directly from a 2008 Newsweek poll. Here's the link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143921/output/print
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET Jun 28, 2008
Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?
Yes 34
No 56
Don't Know 10
2007 poll:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/39529
Dunce-Cap Nation
We asked Americans about current events, history and cultural literacy. And we got some pretty disheartening results.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET Sep 4, 2007
Even today, more' than four years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in 10 Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection...'
At any rate, the article you posted doesn't answer any questions. It's just a load of muddled conjecture designed to try and excuse the embarrassing fact of the poll.
I've been reading, and soul is doing an excellent job exposing your intellectually dishonesty. although I shouldnt give soul too much credit, you make it all too easy
You mean 'intellectual dishonesty'?
I believe the government lies to us and the media cosigns it. I'm not denying that at all. Are you denying that there is more censorship in China than in the US? You have to use a web-proxy to get news because the government prohibits you reading it... are you really going to tell me the US censors more than China?
Your last statement is too vague. I think Americans are more free than the average Chinese.
Do you truly contend that people in the US have access to less information than the Chinese due to censorship?
The article you posted doesn't support your position. This article shows (as its headline clearly indicates) that Americans are fucking morons. It says nothing about censorship or access to information. The cause of American belief in the Saddam-9/11 connection is not mentioned at all in here. It could be inbreeding, stupidity, fox news, or anything else. But it certainly is NOT due to the fact that we can't read news articles debunking that claim.
Propaganda works in many different ways, and on different levels. In my experience people here generally aren't politically minded. The news here is innocuous. The media rarely distorts the facts, or uses the well-worn tactic of selective omission; if a subject is deemed harmful to the powers that be then it's liable to just be outright ignored. People aren't brainwashed, they're just oblivious to many things.
Now, which one of these factors you deem to be preferable is up to you. I'd say it's debatable at any rate. And on the subject of being free, I think it makes little difference.
Funny, but I don't recall you asking me this question before.
I'm only aware of Youtube being blocked. I don't know what else is.
I can't watch Youtube which requires javascript, and because javascript won't work through a proxy I can't watch Youtube vids. Other than that, I'm not aware of anything I can't access.
As for the mainstream news here, I'd say it's just as innocuous and unchallenging as the mainstream news is in the U.S.
If people want information they look on the internet. That's the same here as everywhere else.
I posted the above after your claim that I defended the Chinese government.
Either way, this just shows how desperate you are. Nothing in the above comment points to my defending the Chinese government. Keep trying.
The mere fact of somethings availability doesn't presuppose that anyone's aware of it.
Example: Every year for the past 35 years the U.S has unilaterally vetoed every U.N resolution calling for a peaceful two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine issue. Thais information is available. How many Americans are aware of it?
Have you read 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Deterring Democracy'? You should.
your last statement is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty. its NOT the same as everywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c ... c_of_China
'No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]
And how does any of this differ from the laws in the U.S regarding the internet?
um, try all of them.
So you're saying that 1,2,4, and 7 are o.k in the U.S?
the first part of #7 is no good. the rest are perfectly legal
lol ok dude. I'm sure your 20 posts about China having more freedoms then the US had nothing to do with that. wow, what a hypocrite.
Because I was the first to mention China in this thread, right?
And nice job with throwing out insults. I wonder how many warnings you've received already for your fucking lame trolling tactics on this board?
spare me. no one insulted you. you clearly are acting like a hypocrite for involving yourself in 4 pages of discussion about China and US censorship. but yet, everyone else is to blame right?
and I havent received any warnings for "trolling tactics" because thats not what I do. I'm involved in several discussions ranging from many topics.
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.
Every american should. Its AT LEAST 400.
So planning to overthrow the government is o.k, along with inciting racial hatred? Are you sure about this?
The ongoing problems in the region: i.e, settlement expansion, i.e, ethnic cleansing. Get it?
People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.
As to inciting racial hatred:
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/18/ ... oledo_ohio
Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.
What I call it is irrelevant. The law says the land belongs to Israel. Therefore there is no dispute. Another example of you trying to justify Israel's messianic ethnic cleansing campaign. Get it Soulsinging?
You see, this is bullshit. You've been defending, and making excuses for, Israel's crimes from day one. Who do you think you're kidding?
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
Looks like you're right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
'The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).