Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think everyone should read this article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6047-648517,00.html

At 6/22/03 10:34 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 6/20/03 03:34 PM, Jimsween wrote:
I don't see any flaming until you called me a bitch, And some of those arent even in this topic.

Oh for the love of fuck, would you knock that shit off?

Your the one who should be shutting up.

Check the dates, several are from before I responded, and they're ALL in this topic. Plausible denial is not possible when your retort is implausible.

The first two were talking about catholisism, they were debates stretching from another topic but you would just be too lazy to find out what is happening before you start flaming. And no theya re not, this one isnt

6/17/03 10:04 PM "If it wasn't for America Canada would be a shithole third world country, if it would even exist anymore.

Your the biggest flamer here, not one topic you posted in hasnt had you insulting someone in it.

Jizz, would you just shut the fuck up for once and admit your'e the one who ruined this thread? I'm sick and tired of always seeing you ruining everyones BBS experience with incessant flaming. I would've thought that someone winning the "Biggest Asshole Of 2003 Award" would get a clue. Admit your'e wrong, and the maybe we'll start respecting you.

At 6/22/03 09:09 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Jizz, would you just shut the fuck up for once and admit your'e the one who ruined this thread? I'm sick and tired of always seeing you ruining everyones BBS experience with incessant flaming. I would've thought that someone winning the "Biggest Asshole Of 2003 Award" would get a clue. Admit your'e wrong, and the maybe we'll start respecting you.

I am not going to admit to something that was D2k's fault, hte only reason that he has support is because you daggites stick together (see ninja scientist).

At 6/22/03 08:59 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Your the biggest flamer here, not one topic you posted in hasnt had you insulting someone in it.

I'f I'm such a flamer then surely you can quote a few of my alleged many many flames as I did with you.

At 6/21/03 10:27 AM, nailbomb wrote: We most certainly did. Although there is no proof of a "rescue"

She's out of Iraq, therefore rescued.

I don't think the rescue was hyped that much. Yes, they sent in some soldiers to get her out, but who else were they supposed to send? This was a war zone and even though there may not have been clear intelligence saying that there were Iraqi soldiers in the area, one must always assume that the enemy is around in a war zone. Sending in soldiers was a proper precaution.

Jim, while not a saint by any far measure, is still a lot better at fulfilling the goals of this forum -- discussing and debating politics -- than any number of the DAG members that I've seen. If anything, DAG is an invitation...no...a demand to incite riots by flaming and then blaming it on the other person, especially if that person is Jimsween. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see a rational idea come out of any of you but Shih. Funk has his moments, but then again, so did Nemesisz. Both of you lay off each other. I leave for a week and I come back to chaos.

At 6/22/03 09:18 PM, Jimsween wrote:
I am not going to admit to something that was D2k's fault, hte only reason that he has support is because you daggites stick together (see ninja scientist).

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE, TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY, SWEEN.

Need I place it here in Black & White for a second goddamn time? Fine, here goes:

12/6/03: "I'm a Catholic, bring it bizaaatch. If not please stop blindly posting hate statements because here we support what we say and dont just spout... stuff."/"My parents are catholic but niether of them go to church anymore or take me, as a kid I never cared much for religion. My reasons for not being Catholic come from what I know of history while yours are mostly just coming from angst."

And what do we have here:
13/6/03: " Can we have one thread without Sween or Commander being whining little bitches of the politically unconscious variety? We've all gotta grow up some time..."

Unwarrented? No, you were off, once again, on your little flaming crusade to deflect attention from the topic at hand, which you do EVERY time somebody posts something that is going against your norrow-minded world view.

The real question is this: Can you go a thread without flaming? Fuck, I'm wondering if you actually are a member of the Politics Crew, cinsidering the amount of unsubstantiated "evidence" you liberally toss around, expecting everyone to swallow it unquestionably.

12/6/03:

Jim please realize that not everyone in the world sees eye to eye with you. Get over it and learn to debate with real come backs that stick to the topic not just childish remarks that urge others to respond and give you attention…….

Back to the topic….

The U.S. version of the Jessica Lynch story features a damsel, distress, evil Iraqis, and heroic soldiers saving the day. I think it's best to approach the Pentagon's Rambo rescue story with skepticism.

Thirty-six years ago, crewmen on the U.S.S. Liberty faced a similar dilemma when their surveillance ship was attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. To this day controversy surrounds the assault on the Liberty and the truth about what happened is still strongly disputed.

At 6/23/03 08:22 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 6/22/03 09:18 PM, Jimsween wrote:
I am not going to admit to something that was D2k's fault, hte only reason that he has support is because you daggites stick together (see ninja scientist).

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE, TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY, SWEEN.

Need I place it here in Black & White for a second goddamn time? Fine, here goes:

12/6/03: "I'm a Catholic, bring it bizaaatch. If not please stop blindly posting hate statements because here we support what we say and dont just spout... stuff."/"My parents are catholic but niether of them go to church anymore or take me, as a kid I never cared much for religion. My reasons for not being Catholic come from what I know of history while yours are mostly just coming from angst."

And what do we have here:
13/6/03: " Can we have one thread without Sween or Commander being whining little bitches of the politically unconscious variety? We've all gotta grow up some time..."

Unwarrented? No, you were off, once again, on your little flaming crusade to deflect attention from the topic at hand, which you do EVERY time somebody posts something that is going against your norrow-minded world view.

Who was it that posted the creap about catholics in the first place? And I wasnt the only one who was talking about catholics everyone was at that time. YOUR the one who called me a bitch which stifles debate much more than replying to something someone else said.

The real question is this: Can you go a thread without flaming? Fuck, I'm wondering if you actually are a member of the Politics Crew, cinsidering the amount of unsubstantiated "evidence" you liberally toss around, expecting everyone to swallow it unquestionably.

You just described yourself completely, you started the flaming so shut up and quit acting like a dumbass.

At 6/23/03 10:11 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: Jim please realize that not everyone in the world sees eye to eye with you. Get over it and learn to debate with real come backs that stick to the topic not just childish remarks that urge others to respond and give you attention…….

D2k is the one calling me a bitch, your just to blind with dag love and PC hatred to go back and actually read what happened.

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

It will only take one more flame to see what happens.

I'm talking to all of you.

How The Presstitutes Lie To America

Example: How The Press Has Become A Tool Of Our Government

The following article entitled, She was 'fighting to the death ...' states,

She was 'fighting to the death ...'
By Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Lynch, 19, a supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die in fighting 11 days ago, one official said. The ambush took place after a 507th convoy took a wrong turn in the southern city of Nasiriyah.

"She was fighting to the death," the official said. "She did not want to be taken alive."

Lynch was stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her position, the official said, noting that initial intelligence reports indicated that she had been stabbed to death.

The Reality was quite different as revealed in this report.
Rescued POW had no gunshot, knife wounds: father

WASHINGTON (AFP) Apr 03, 2003
The father of rescued POW Jessica Lynch said Thursday she suffered no gunshot or knife wounds at the hands of her Iraqi assailants, contrary to reports quoting a US official.

While the first article is clearly a complete fabrication attributed to "official sources" it is convincing evidence of how our journalists have prostituted themselves and become a part of the propaganda machine, employed to lie and distort the truth.- ARTICLE.

How does this prove anything, the press cant report stuff they they dont know and there is no way for them to have looked at jessica lynch, they were only able to report on hearsay and conjecture. Which is exatly what you are doing because you have no proof that the press was doing what the government told them to. So for you to claim the press is propaganda would be hipocritical.

At 6/23/03 08:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: How does this prove anything, the press cant report stuff they they dont know and there is no way for them to have looked at jessica lynch, they were only able to report on hearsay and conjecture. Which is exatly what you are doing because you have no proof that the press was doing what the government told them to. So for you to claim the press is propaganda would be hipocritical.

MY momma said if i have nothing nice to say...dont say nothing at all....

*Eerie silence*
*Hears a prick drop...oops i mean pin*

And the word of the that is: Hipocritical!

At 6/22/03 11:47 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

She's out of Iraq, therefore rescued.

So all the troops that came back home were also resuced?

I don't think the rescue was hyped that much. Yes, they sent in some soldiers to get her out, but who else were they supposed to send? This was a war zone and even though there may not have been clear intelligence saying that there were Iraqi soldiers in the area, one must always assume that the enemy is around in a war zone. Sending in soldiers was a proper precaution.

It was a hospital, read the article I linked a few posts ago.

At 6/23/03 11:05 PM, nailbomb wrote:
So all the troops that came back home were also resuced?

You're being too literal. She was captured; They went in and got her back. Therefore, she was rescued. This should be a simple point to grasp.

It was a hospital, read the article I linked a few posts ago.

I know it was a hospital. I heard that the night it happened.

It doesn't matter what the building happened to be. What mattered was that it was in an unsecured zone in a war with no clear battle front. You don't wander into the middle of a potential combat area saying, "Well, it' a hospital so I'm sure there's no enemy around and I'm sure they'd never attack us."

At 6/23/03 08:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: How does this prove anything, the press cant report stuff they they dont know and there is no way for them to have looked at jessica lynch, they were only able to report on hearsay and conjecture. Which is exatly what you are doing because you have no proof that the press was doing what the government told them to. So for you to claim the press is propaganda would be hipocritical.

The Press was reporting what they were told by the U.S. Army, then they tried to ask questions but they were told not to ask question to Jessica Lynch or her family so when they asked questions to the hospital workers that were there when she was "rescued" they found a rather interesting story. See the link above.

At 6/23/03 11:12 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

You're being too literal. She was captured; They went in and got her back. Therefore, she was rescued. This should be a simple point to grasp.

She was captured and held as POW in a hospital? with no soldiers watching her?

It doesn't matter what the building happened to be. What mattered was that it was in an unsecured zone in a war with no clear battle front. You don't wander into the middle of a potential combat area saying, "Well, it' a hospital so I'm sure there's no enemy around and I'm sure they'd never attack us."

There wasn't any, even though Lynch was supposed to be an innocent POW being held captive by the evil Iraqis. It does matter if you're a POW, they're going to keep you in a box or a jail or something besides a hospital.

At 6/23/03 11:19 PM, nailbomb wrote: She was captured and held as POW in a hospital? with no soldiers watching her?

No soldiers? I somehow doubt that she was completely unguarded.

There wasn't any, even though Lynch was supposed to be an innocent POW being held captive by the evil Iraqis. It does matter if you're a POW, they're going to keep you in a box or a jail or something besides a hospital.

A POW is a POW, no matter where you put them. Location does not magically change their status. She was captured by the Iraqi army in a time of war and therefore a POW.

The question that was supposed to be at hand here was "Were they justified in sending in soldiers to get her?"

The answer is yes, because they had no way of knowing what size the enemy force was. Even if there was none, sending in soldiers to a war zone is an understandable and wise precaution.

You seem to be trying to argue that because it was a hospital, that it had some special status where the realities of war didn't apply. That's just not true.

At 6/23/03 11:31 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/23/03 11:19 PM, nailbomb wrote: She was captured and held as POW in a hospital? with no soldiers watching her?

No soldiers? I somehow doubt that she was completely unguarded.

Not one guard in sight, check more recents reports on her.

A POW is a POW, no matter where you put them. Location does not magically change their status. She was captured by the Iraqi army in a time of war and therefore a POW.

Yes but usually POWS are..prisonners..in a prison. or at least they're guarded.

The question that was supposed to be at hand here was "Were they justified in sending in soldiers to get her?"

Yes.

You seem to be trying to argue that because it was a hospital, that it had some special status where the realities of war didn't apply. That's just not true.

No guards. :)

At 6/23/03 11:36 PM, nailbomb wrote:
No guards. :)

20/20 hindsight.

It may have turned out that the guards fled or were not present, but the Coalition had no way of knowing this for certain.

At 6/23/03 11:12 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/23/03 08:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: How does this prove anything, the press cant report stuff they they dont know and there is no way for them to have looked at jessica lynch, they were only able to report on hearsay and conjecture. Which is exatly what you are doing because you have no proof that the press was doing what the government told them to. So for you to claim the press is propaganda would be hipocritical.

The Press was reporting what they were told by the U.S. Army, then they tried to ask questions but they were told not to ask question to Jessica Lynch or her family so when they asked questions to the hospital workers that were there when she was "rescued" they found a rather interesting story. See the link above.

Being told by the US army can mean many things, first it can mean that an officer was giving out information which still would mean that the press was doing no wrongdoing, only saying what they were told. But it could also mean that some random soldier called up the news network and told them something about it, either way this says nothing abouth the media being propaganda, it only says that they are so desperate for news that they will report the slightest amount of information they get as much as they can.

By the way what were the english reporters reporting about jessica lynch when the story first came out? It sure wasnt what they are reporting now.

At 6/24/03 03:20 AM, Jimsween wrote:

Being told by the US army can mean many things, first it can mean that an officer was giving out information which still would mean that the press was doing no wrongdoing, only saying what they were told. But it could also mean that some random soldier called up the news network and told them something about it, either way this says nothing abouth the media being propaganda, it only says that they are so desperate for news that they will report the slightest amount of information they get as much as they can.

A few press conferences were held in which high-ranking officers told the brave story of Jessica Lynch. When reporters asked to interview Lynch or her relatives, the Army refused. They only knew what they were told until they interviewed the hospital workers and found out that there was no guards watching this so-called POW and that the US soldiers fired shots at empty rooms. (see link on page 3)

The news was propaganda but it wasn't intentional propaganda.

By the way what were the english reporters reporting about jessica lynch when the story first came out? It sure wasnt what they are reporting now.

No, now they're doing reports on Mad Cow Disease and how the BBC line-up sucks.

At 6/23/03 07:19 PM, Jimsween wrote:
Who was it that posted the creap about catholics in the first place? And I wasnt the only one who was talking about catholics everyone was at that time. YOUR the one who called me a bitch which stifles debate much more than replying to something someone else said.

Does it matter? Did you ignore it, or did you just come out with, to paraphrase, "You know nothing, and you're just and angsty kid that shouldn't have a voice"? Come to think of it, isn't that Commander's wording?

And once more, you won't accept responsibility. You know, it was going fine until you hit "Reply" (repeatedly), how strange that is. I notice that my comment didn't anchor the debate, but yours did. Repeat the pattern for every other thread you conveniently change the subject in.

You just described yourself completely, you started the flaming so shut up and quit acting like a dumbass.

Is your voice as high-pitched and whiney as I imagine it at this exact moment? "No, it's not me, you're talking about yourself." Mature, Sween, very mature. By the way, where do you stand on the actual topic? You don't actually have a position?

May I feign surprise?

Flamers are like teeth, ignore them and they'll go away. Besides, if you respond to their flames you might get banned, is it really worth it?

At 6/12/03 12:17 AM, mwazzap wrote: Didn't you know? Im the antichrist. Catholics are the first on my list. Republicans are second.

Really? Then I guess we need to fight, because I'm both, and damn proud of it! Are you Muslim? If so, that makes it better to fight you.

At 6/24/03 01:54 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/24/03 03:20 AM, Jimsween wrote:

Being told by the US army can mean many things, first it can mean that an officer was giving out information which still would mean that the press was doing no wrongdoing, only saying what they were told. But it could also mean that some random soldier called up the news network and told them something about it, either way this says nothing abouth the media being propaganda, it only says that they are so desperate for news that they will report the slightest amount of information they get as much as they can.

A few press conferences were held in which high-ranking officers told the brave story of Jessica Lynch. When reporters asked to interview Lynch or her relatives, the Army refused. They only knew what they were told until they interviewed the hospital workers and found out that there was no guards watching this so-called POW and that the US soldiers fired shots at empty rooms. (see link on page 3)

If you made a mistake and said something that wasnt true at all wouldnt you want to hide that mistake? And if I'm not mistaken high ranking officers arent supposed to be saying what is happening to the press, they have certain "special" people to do that.

The news was propaganda but it wasn't intentional propaganda.

No such thing as uninintentional propaganda,

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

The news was not promoting some cause it was only saying what it was told. The information that the officers gave to the press was probably propaganda (I say proabably because we do not know what thier intentions were) but the information the news told wasnt. Propaganda is a tricky thing so it's best not to go around claiming things are propaganda.

By the way what were the english reporters reporting about jessica lynch when the story first came out? It sure wasnt what they are reporting now.

No, now they're doing reports on Mad Cow Disease and how the BBC line-up sucks.

I was talking about what they are reporting now about jessica lynch.

At 6/25/03 03:56 AM, Jimsween wrote:

If you made a mistake and said something that wasnt true at all wouldnt you want to hide that mistake? And if I'm not mistaken high ranking officers arent supposed to be saying what is happening to the press, they have certain "special" people to do that.

No.

Propaganda is a tricky thing so it's best not to go around claiming things are propaganda.

The media unkowingly spread propaganda, the Army knew what it was doing, the media didn't.

I was talking about what they are reporting now about jessica lynch.

The same thing as American, Canadian or Mexican media, there is no proof that Lynch really was a POW.