LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI say deliver a "mad cow" to their terrorist camps.
A bit off topic, but since the issue of 'dirty tricks' arose, I thought I could enumerate a simple way of agro terrorism.
Walk through a field with fungal infected clothes and the crop is infected and it dies. Fungal spores require no life support cultures for their transportation, unlike bacteria and virus.
If done on a large scale (walking through fields as if they are nature lovers or bird spotter or something equally 'exciting'), there will is an agricultural catastophe. It will not attract too much of attention also like crop dusting etc without the owner's permission.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
I say deliver a "mad cow" to their terrorist camps.
Biological Warfare was first done (recorded) in 1346 where the Mongols catapulted cholera ridden corpse over the walls of Kaffa (Crimea) and the Genoans had to flee.
Now that could be tried.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Thats not polotics, thats the media, in WW2 this would be unheard of. We wouldn't be telling the Germans we were about to launch D-Day at Normandy on 5 beaches with the Americans on the western flank. We wouldn't be telling the Japanese we had broken their code and knew Midway was their next target and inform them that we had just 3 carriers, just so they could pool their Alutians fleet into the action in hopes of bagging the whole lot.Originally Posted by Julie
The problem is the media has developed a holier than thou attitude in reguards to getting a story out to the public, "the people have a right to know!!" is what they say. Tell the enemy we have enemy prisoners being abused and ask "is this a wide spread epidemic?" knowing full well the anger it will spark reguardless if the wheels of justice are working to correct the problem or not.
I'm not defending those idiots that abused the prisoners at Abu Garab but for god sakes lets be smart and minimize the damage when we know full well they will be prosicuted.
"Loose lips sink ships", that saying had a meaning.
It is the Dept. of Defense (Tori) that is allowing media inbedding with the military.
regarding the attack on fallujah, military planning needn't be revealed to the media. Do you really think the media has access to the war room? The embedded journalists should only know about the attack as the troops were moving out. It's hard for the media not to know what's going on when the military volunteers the information. Secret military planning need not be released. When you drop leaflets a few weeks prior to the attack, how are you supposed to guard your intent from the media?
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
The media should stop putting the story out knowing full well what the implications will be, do we really need the gov't to act like a bunch of nazi's and start supressing and controling the media?, hardly what we want! They are grown adults and should be able to predict the ramifications if they leak the story out.
Normally I would agree with you. Being ex-military I do believe in the concept of a "need to know" situation. It a war time situation, the press shouldn't have access to planning scenarios. Once all is said and done however, they can go nuts and twist and turn it any which way they see fit to sell subscriptions and garner sponsors. We'll never control that beast. When our soldiers lives are on the line...I have to say the general public does not have the "need to know".
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
I could'nt agree more.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
It is more complicated than that. The news media hires former Generals and Chiefs and while not in the war room, they/we know enough to deduce the real thing.
Chimo
Well, yes, but there are implications there too. Former chiefs still have their responsibilities. I am sure most of them have these "front and centre" in their minds.
I don't think the media should "calm down". However i do think that the millitary should control the media, just as it would control any other area of the battle front. I think embedding the media is dubious, and i think live footage from a firefight has no place on a TV screen. One reason being that the reports have very little idea of what is actually going on. Fog of war and all that.
I am all for after the facts reporting, because considered analysis can be done, the "truth", as much as it is known, can be given and an all round more polished and satisying new report can be delivered.
Quite why the press was able, with absolute certainty, to broadcast that the US forces were preparing their assualt on Fallujah is a mystery. But then the US military has done such "trailers" before - such as Somalia - and so perhaps it needs to look to itself regaridng what it tells journalists.
Abu Grahib was slightly different as it was leaks about torture that was going on. Something that we do not condone, support, nor want others to believe we do. It was actual incidents that needed to be reported. If they hadn't been, then stories would still have got out. This is the role of the media and something that does preserve out freedoms and the freedoms we wish the people if Iraq to share.
However Iraq will be a mess for quite a while yet. One fo the phrases so imprtant to US society is "we the people ....". And that phrase came from a struggle. A struggle that the great seats of freedom have all gone through. Democracy and freedom is strong in the US, the UK, France etc, because their people have fought each other to establish these principles. Iraq, on the other hand has been invaded by foreign powers, from a different religion, and had given to them "You the people ... " . Until they can justifiably say "We the people" the Insurgents will continue fighting.
Dude you regurgitating propaganda?.............. Again?
Comeon now!
They don't hate you for your "Freedoms"! That is a common misconception.
they hate "you" for your policies!
lets not mouth piece Bush boy over here.
This coming from our own "Baghdad Bob"....Dude you regurgitating propaganda?.............. Again?
Comeon now!
They don't hate you for your "Freedoms"! That is a common misconception.
they hate "you" for your policies!
lets not mouth piece Bush boy over here.
eh? I am basically saying that Bush was wrong, that the US imposing freedom on Iraq won't work. Much like it won't and hasn't worked anywhere else.Dude you regurgitating propaganda?.............. Again?
Comeon now!
They don't hate you for your "Freedoms"! That is a common misconception.
they hate "you" for your policies!
lets not mouth piece Bush boy over here.
Bin Laden didn't attack the US because the US is free and he hates freedom. He attacked the US because he views the US as a demon that is out to remove his lifestyle, his religious freedom. He views the US as Julius might view Rome in Nero's time.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrre's Bobby!
Trooth man my bad....... I thought you were thinkin about Dubbya and unnecesarily having a sorta 'wet dream'...........
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: