Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'

[gopher]

"How can you blame/defend the Iranians even IF they have supplied arms and materiel to the insurgents in Iraq?"


Before anyone even attempts to answer that question, the real issue is, where is the proof that Iran has supplied any such armaments?

We have been waiting for over a year and Bush has not presented a shred of evidence. How much longer is Congress and the American public going to tolerate his lies?

 

[MHz]

I don't know of any democracy that would not have some clause for violent defense against invasion from another Nation.
The banks don't care where the money comes from, as long as the money keeps flowing back to them. War involves a whole lot of money, with interest usually.

 

[Scott Free]

"

Before anyone even attempts to answer that question, the real issue is, where is the proof that Iran has supplied any such armaments?

We have been waiting for over a year and Bush has not presented a shred of evidence. How much longer is Congress and the American public going to tolerate his lies?

According to the Economist most of the weapons and AQ fighters are supplied by Saudi Arabia.

 

[MikeyDB]

I'd caution against taking the "word" of any western (and many European) news 'agencies' at face value when it comes to the veracity of their work. While we may agree that the government the culture and the heart and soul of America (and Canada) is mired in corruption and exposed as untruthful and devious ..time and time again, the bottom line is that as long as the corporate nabobs can influence 'reality' through media, the truth will be a rare commodity.

 

[Praxius]

I'd caution against taking the "word" of any western (and many European) news 'agencies' at face value when it comes to the veracity of their work. While we may agree that the government the culture and the heart and soul of America (and Canada) is mired in corruption and exposed as untruthful and devious ..time and time again, the bottom line is that as long as the corporate nabobs can influence 'reality' through media, the truth will be a rare commodity.

I wouldn't brand everything they do and all of them at once with the same iron.

I mean, without the news I checked up yesterday I wouldn't have known about the RCMP reclassifying information on the taser reports which were available just a year or so ago. They showed more corruption in the RCMP, yet again.... showing they're still scum at this point (Organization, not all individuals of course) and this report here quoted him as he said it apparently.... which I seen on another agency which seemed pretty accurate, they didn't mention what evidence they have to back up their claims..... so how would you see a problem in that?

It's when they start shoving their opinions on the topic their talking about that get to me, and it shows they're trying to influence the view of the story. CNN, Fox, and a few others do this a lot.

For Canada, when I watch for example, Global National.... I see them report the stories, give all the details available and then, bam..... next story. Not much time to hint on an opinion. They just give the info and off to the next story. CBC and CTV for the most part when watching their basic news, is pretty straight forward with details and there's usually not any influence that I pick up on like one would see on CNN/Fox.

I mean sure, a house fire report and someone dies in it for example. They start it off calling it a "Horrific Scene" or "Bone Chilling" event, etc.... that's sorta typical of any human. But when it comes to talking about another country's actions, or someone in a criminal case, they tend to stick to the details and move on.

And besides, if anybody relies 100% on the news and media for their information, that's their own fault. You can't trust them all, and you can't trust them all the time. But you can take the available information they give you and work with it further.

 

[Scott Free]

I'd caution against taking the "word" of any western (and many European) news 'agencies' at face value when it comes to the veracity of their work. While we may agree that the government the culture and the heart and soul of America (and Canada) is mired in corruption and exposed as untruthful and devious ..time and time again, the bottom line is that as long as the corporate nabobs can influence 'reality' through media, the truth will be a rare commodity.

I agree. That is the sick slumber we are under in North America that I made reference to in another post. The fact is that we don't have any facts. News is bent and twist into narratives which are spun so they seem significant to each viewer. There was a great example of this from The Province (BC) news paper posted here already.

There is a way to glean what is actually happening in any region of the world but this requires exhaustive research and analysis of cause and effect forces that could logically bring about the events. The biggest rule of thumb is the simple explanation is typically the wrong one and probably some sort of propaganda. This is the exact opposite of science where the simple explanation is probably accurate. I think this is caused quite naturally since we aren't (can't be) more intelligent than ourselves so any explanation needs to be complex. The simple solutions do not reflect the complexities of human culture and mind - something which, by reason, will always baffle us. It works to be reductionist in hard science but that doesn't work in sociological settings. In such circumstances reductionism will invariably lead to extremist views and simple explanations that fail to take in the complexity of human interaction.

 

[MHz]

The Media has publicly stated that they are under no obligation to tell the truth. The Gov has publicly stated that they will plant false stories in foreign countries with the express forethought to encourage instability.

 

[earth_as_one]

US intelligence knew Iraq did not possess a credible WMD threat before they invaded.

So did anyone who read this public report:

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
UNMOVIC Executive Chairman
Dr. Hans Blix

...How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Apparently George Bush didn't see that report because 10 days later he said this:

(That's what it says!)

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours [/FONT]
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation

...the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...

...The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Perhaps someone who believes the war was justified, can offer some proof that Iraq was a WMD threat or was in league with al Queda. I never saw any proof before the war and I haven't seen any since.

 

[MHz]

The US would have carried on sanctions forever, ask Cuba. When they went Euro for oil that was it. Possession of the land was then required, that is what they secured first, free oil to Israel will be done before they leave (never).

 

[gopher]

According to the Economist most of the weapons and AQ fighters are supplied by Saudi Arabia.

Several other sources have provided similar analyses. Yet, Bush has nothing to stop them.

The real problem then is, when will Congress wake up and take corrective action?

And when will the international community demand that Bush stop harassing Iran?