USA destroying hospitals in Falluja so the world media can't show dead civilians.

100 cry babies

Wake up you clown....lol

I has poor comprehension skills?

Ok mr eloquent, have fun with your self appointed title.

Good point as always.

It was pretty obvious that was a typo. No offense dude, but it looks like trouserrat beats you in the writing department.

Glad you refuted my points. As I said, why do you ignore...hmmm, I wonder?

That's basically a requirement of anyone who accepts the CNN tale of American as the truth.

Damn, you IS an awesum riter

You think the Iraq campaign is going well then ??

English please?

I used to like Canada until I found out how much they really hate the USA. And don't say you don't because calling us Idiots and fools is no way to show you love us.

What points did you make? You ranted on about the NY Times being anti-Bush, do you even understand what this thread is about? I'm not fucking talking about the NY times moron, I'm talking about network news and the false view of reality it tricks idiots like you into believing.

The prison story you gave is a prime example. Idiots like you don't care about it, or you think it was a a few rouge soldiers. In reality it's a huge violation of the law that was ordered from the top, happened hundreds of times and multiple prisons, and has completely tarnished centuries of tradition of the American army not torturing POWs. Now it's not an issue, Rumsfeld hasn't even been forced to resign over authorizing it. It's probably still fucking happening for all we know.

I understand all the bullshit you're saying, I've heard it a million times before from a million people. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about CNN being anti-Bush, lol. If you don't understand how the media suckered you into buying this war, and how it's completely glamorizing the war, that's your problem, not mine.

Then stop being idiots. Don't expect people to sit by and tell you how great you are when you're fucking up to a historic degree. Who would that help?

It has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism", as the TV would like you to believe. Almost all of us have friends or family in the US.

People who aren't exposed to the level of propaganda you guys are can see what's really going on, and it has nothing to do with George Bush loving freedom. It has everything to do with the neo-conservatives misguided plan for global hegemony.

we should pull out ffs.

I guess NBC, CBS, and ABC aren't network news.

I assume you have proof of this. Call up Dan Rather, he'd love to break that story. Did you know we never landed on the moon?

Yea right.
Because you'll lose?

Just like being a lunatic out of touch with reality is just your little cross to bear.

So let me get this straight. You are right and all that think different are idiots? You have the truth and we have only lies?
Only you have the smarts to figure all this out, well thank god you came along to set us straght.....

Those three networks you named did the exact same thing, like I said I'm sorry if you can't see through it yourself, maybe one day. Do you think your little rants and insults make sense to anyone with any kind of an education and understanding of the world?

Nice way to avoid giving an answer

No, you said that network news doesn't do what I said. The post is right there. So what other network news stations are you talking about? I swear, reading your posts is like watching a fly struggling in a spider web, only slightly less entertaining. Kid.

And yes, I make sense to 99.9999999% of intelligent people. Sorry. Even if they disagree with me, I make sense.

I can't answer what I don't understand. I only speak English, sorry. And how does me debating whether the US media is pro or anti Bush reflect anything about my views on how I think the war in Iraq is going? God save me from idiots. Go back to making your thumbnail galleries.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Read my fucking posts, twice if you have to. I'm not saying it again. I have no fucking clue why everything is so hard for you to understand. Better yet, turn off the TV for a month, read my posts, and then watch again. You'll understand.

The polled 60 countries around the world and asked this:

"What do you feel is the most immediate threat to your way of life?"

72% Of the 60 Countries answer was:

-The USA-

Regardless of what we're doing it when we are. Don't you think we have a habit of making stupid decisions like these?
And spend wasteless hours debating the reasons, tactics, and mentalities of our various positions.

Blah.

He's still talking about pro-Bush, unbelievable. I swear this kid can type but not read.

It was written in English dumbass.

You seem like quite an irritable little xenophobe. Say it isn't so

Just asked a simple question. I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply. I see that you are quite adept at changing the subject when it suits you.

One last try: do you think that the war in Iraq is going well?

Read slowly and sound out the big words.
Twice? Come on, talk about torture.

Thank God, although I don't think you knew what you were saying in the first place.

It's not.

But I love The OC!
That you're an idiot? No need, already do.

Post was edited after I pointed it out to him, brainiac. Unless you think "You think the Iraq campaign is going then well" is proper English?

He simply transposed two words.

Are you trying to tell me that you were incapable of comprehending what he meant to say?

Because if you are, I've met five year old's with better reading comprehension skills.

Riddle me this: What ultra secret Canadian news source do you have access to that I do not? I read Candian and American Newspapers. I watch CTV, CBC, BBC and CNN news. I am also well travelled with an ICQ list of friends around the world who's points of view I regularily listen to.

So please tell me why my news sources aren't reality, but your ultra-secret ones are cut and dry the truth?

Canadian news had John Kerry a shoe-in win. Some of us knew better the real pulse of the *voting*(not to be confused with the P-Diddy-listening-to, Michael-Moore-under-wearing band of liberal youth you actually thought would sway an election) Americans. Good call on that one by the way.

Do you remember how they sold you Iraq?

I know how they sold the general public. I also have my own thoughts on to the actual reasons.
Again with the highly speculative, totally imaginary "your TV". I sure wish I had access to "your TV" from the East instead. It's probably full of truth and justice!
Not exactly. Nothing is ever so clear in absolute terms. I'm suggesting that there are many different elements at work in Iraq today. SOME of them are terrorist killers, while many of them are not. You make it out that every crazy with an AK in Iraq is a patriotic father who's lost his children. Some of them may well be. Can you make room for the possibility that some of them are just crazy fundamentalists that don't really have much to do with Iraq at all?

You're clearly intelligent and have made me stop and reconsider my positions on more than one issue. The more you talk in absolute terms as if you're the aboslute authority the less I respect what you have to say at all. The fact of the matter is unless you're some sort of ex-diplomat from the Middle East, you really can't expect to know all the details anymore than the people you're mocking.

Let's see what the Iraq headlines are right now on your first rate American media websites.

MSNBC:

-U.S. says it holds 70 percent of Fallujah
-Hostage slaughterhouses? found in Fallujah
-NBC: On the scene with Marines in Fallujah

Combined of course with a cool picture of a soldier pointing a gun. Oddly no pictures of US troops taking fire.


CNN:

-Hostage slaughterhouses' found
-Iraq PM's relatives kidnapped
-Video: Months of preparations | Assault
-Gallery: Battles rage in rebel stronghold.

Combined with a picture of soldiers getting on to what appears to be a helicopter. Amazingly, no enemy fire.


FOX:

-U.S. military says 70 percent of Fallujah under control; terrorists claim 20 Iraqi troops held hostage
-Hostage 'Slaughterhouses' Found in Fallujah
-Photo Essay: Storming Fallujah


Combined with a pictures of troops in a control room. No enemy fire there.

ABC:

-U.S. Forces Advance in Fallujah
-Related: U.S. Forces Hold 70 Percent of Fallujah
-Related: Iraq Extended Coverage

Combined with a picture of American soldiers heroically saving a hostage from his handcuffs. For a second I thought it was a dead Iraqi, but of course, it's not. What heros the Americans are, I wish they would liberate me.



CBS:

-U.S. Control Of Fallujah
-Dutch Feel Terror's Touch
-Iraq Attacks Continue
-Most Of Fallujah Secured

CBS actually does have a picture of a wounded soldier, being helped to the helicopter by other soldiers (not wearing helmets or vests?).


See the pattern? Notice it's all the same bullshit? Notice no mention of the clinic being bombed? Starting to realize how the wools has been pulled over your eyes? I doubt it, but you should. Ever wonder how all of these independent, non partisan, first rate investigative journalism institutes constantly pump out the exact same stories? It's because they're reporting based on what the Pentagon tells them. If you think that's real news, please just kill yourself now and do the world a favor. If you repeat something enough times it becomes the truth, that's what the US media is based on. All I ask is that the next time they're selling you a war, think for yourself a little bit. Question what they're telling you, even if every network is saying the same thing (even the "liberal" networks).

Thank God, someone else has arrived with more intelligence than a liver fluke. I gotta go to the gym.

PS. My dear idiot Joseph, five year olds has no apostrophe and comprehension is not spelled "compreshension". Really, stop embarrassing yourself.

Says the idiot making pathetic excuses.

Dude, I'm not saying BBC or CBC are right about everything, as I've said, no one is. The point is that sources like those are honest journalism, and CNN and other US media are just completely trying to push their point of view, that America is always right and never vulnerable. I'm sure you can see the difference between watching CNN and CBC, one is news, the other is some sort of 1984 style pseudo entertainment rhetoric. It's training you guys to enjoy war.


They aren't, nothing is "the cut and dry truth".


I don't remember any Canadian news source predicting a Kerry win. They all said it was going to be very close. Clearly most people in the Canadian media support Kerry. Nearly every educated person outside of America does, if you think I'm wrong then start naming names.

Personally I thought Kerry was going to get more votes, but I never thought Bush was going to leave the White House. By the sounds of all the voting fuck ups, I still might be right. I'll never understand how ANYONE can accept such an obviously flawed election, but that's another story.


I don't doubt that a lot of the people fighting in Iraq are fucking nutjobs. However most are fighting for Iraqi freedom, exactly as the Vietnamese were. They told us we were fighting communists during that war, now they tell us we're fighting terrorists. If another country invaded you, I'm sure you'd fight back, by any means necessary.

Many of the people fighting in Iraq are more akin to Chinese soldiers fighting for "Vietnamese Freedom". They didn't want Vietnam to be free, they wanted it to be under their control. Same goes for Radical Islamic fighters coming in from all over the Middle East.

I'd like to think I'd fight back too. I'm fairly certain I'd apply some more common sense, however.

For instance, I wouldn't allow children to dance and play around destroyed occupation millitary vehicles and then whine about them getting hurt later.

I'm fairly certain I wouldn't kidnap aid workers who have been in my country most of their lives and threaten to cut their heads off.

I'm confident I wouldn't feel good about blowing up other Canadians to make my point to invaders.

War is hell. It's also a fact of life. In an ideal World, we'd have no war and children wouldn't be killed. Unfortunetly our World is populated with Humans and Humans by their very nature are greedy and selfish.

There shouldn't be a "." after "PS", and "PS" should be lowercase

The movie "the Fog of War" is on the documentary channel right now. Anyone who hasn't seen it, you have to watch it. It's the lessons learned by Robert Mcnamera, the secretary of defense during Vietnam. Lesson number 1- empathize with your enemy. Understand how they look at you. This is the opposite of the message US news gives us.

Did anyone else not know that bastard invented the seatbelt?

Go Rich!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3998049.stm

"n Falluja, marines backed by tanks met little opposition when they blasted their way into the mayor's compound, which also houses a police station, early on Wednesday.

However, they later came under sustained fire from the minaret of a mosque, says our correspondent, whose reports are subject to military restrictions. "

"PS" is an abbreviation of postscript (from the Latin "postscriptum" meaning "what is written afterward") and abbreviations typically have periods after them. Alternatively, it could be written P.S. as well. And yes, it should be capitalized. Please don't try to sound intelligent, it just makes you seem silly.

Go take a shower hippie; We're not bombing hospitals for helluva it. It's called urban warfare, go enlist and see what it's really like. If someone is firing rockets at me from a hospital window I'd be the first one to call in air support.

I thought that you would be hard at work on your magnum opus, as you are evidently a man of letters

But now that you've decided to grace us with your presence, perhaps you'd reconsider your avoidance of the following question .....

Is the War in Iraq a success?
Mission Accomplished?
Are things proceeding as planned?

Your insults and delusions of intellectual superiority aside, just answer the question

Of course I'm referring to that man of letters trouserrat ...

Downtime,

There aren't many "insurgents" left in the city. Maximum 1-2,000 prior to the attack on the city. They've melted away (by the design of both sides IMO).

Overwhelming fire power won't win this war. Air strikes are seldom as precise as advertised. If it were only that simple.

Trouserrat, how do you spell 'quagmire'?

And what about the headline that started this thread?

"Battle rages in centre of Falluja Rebel losses in Falluja are said to be in the hundreds as US marines fight their way into a city in ruins."

No mention of the fucking clinic in that headline either.

As far as removing Saddam from power, yes. Making Iraq a democracy,not yet.

Define the mission. See above. One complete, another is not.
I was not privy to the plans the US had. Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, and Powell invited me, but I couldn't make it. If I had to make a guess, I'd say some aspects of the operation proceeded as planned, others did not. Such is war; ask any soldier or commander.

I guess so is Naomi:


By NAOMI KLEIN
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

POSTED AT 1:46 AM EST Wednesday, Nov 10, 2004

P. Diddy announced on the weekend that his "vote or die" campaign will live on. The hip-hop mogul's voter-registration drive during the U.S. election was, he said, merely "phase one, step one for us to get people engaged."

Fantastic. I have a suggestion for phase two: P. Diddy, Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio and the rest of the self-described "coalition of the willing" should take their chartered jet and fly to Fallujah, where their efforts are desperately needed. But first they are going to need to flip the slogan from "vote or die!" to "die, then vote!"

Because that is what is happening. Escape routes have been sealed off, homes are being demolished, and an emergency health clinic has been razed ? all to prepare the city for January elections. In a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, U.S.-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi explained that the attack was required "to safeguard lives, elections and democracy in Iraq."

With all the millions spent on "democracy-building" and "civil society" in Iraq, it has come to this: If you can survive attack by the world's only superpower, you get to cast a ballot. Fallujans are going to vote even if they have to die first. And make no mistake: They are Fallujans under the gun. "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Fallujah," Marine Lieutenant-Colonel Gareth Brandl told the BBC. Well, at least he admitted that some of the fighters actually live in Fallujah, unlike Donald Rumsfeld, who would have us believe that they are all from Syria and Jordan. U.S. Army vehicles, meanwhile, are blaring recordings forbidding all men between the ages of 15 and 50 from leaving the city, suggesting that at least a few Iraqis are among what CNN now obediently describes as the "anti-Iraqi forces."

Elections in Iraq were never going to be peaceful, but they didn't need to be an all-out war on voters, either. Mr. Allawi's "rocket the vote" campaign is the direct result of a disastrous decision made a year ago. On Nov. 11, 2003, Paul Bremer, then chief U.S. envoy to Iraq, flew to Washington to meet President George W. Bush. The two men were concerned that, if they kept their promise to hold elections in Iraq within the coming months, the country would fall into the hands of insufficiently pro-U.S. forces.

That would defeat the purpose of the invasion, and it would threaten Mr. Bush's re-election chances. So the men hatched a revised plan: Elections would be delayed for more than a year; meantime, Washington would hand-pick Iraq's first "sovereign" government. This would allow Mr. Bush to claim progress on the campaign trail, while keeping Iraq safely under U.S. control.

In the U.S., Mr. Bush's claim that "freedom is on the march" served its purpose, but, in Iraq, the plan led directly to today's carnage. Mr. Bush likes to paint the forces opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq as enemies of democracy. In fact, much of the uprising can be traced directly to decisions made in Washington to stifle, delay, manipulate and otherwise thwart the Iraqi people's democratic aspirations. Yes, democracy has genuine opponents in Iraq, but before Mr. Bush and Mr. Bremer decided to break their central promise to hand over power to an elected Iraqi government, these forces were isolated and contained. That changed when Mr. Bremer returned to Baghdad and tried to convince Iraqis that they weren't yet ready for democracy.

Mr. Bremer said the country was too insecure to hold elections and, besides, there were no voter rolls. Few were convinced. In January of 2003, 100,000 Iraqis peacefully took to the streets of Baghdad, with 30,000 more in Basra. Their chant was, "Yes, yes elections. No, no selections." At the time, many argued that the lists from the Saddam Hussein-era oil-for-food program could serve as voter rolls. Mr. Bremer wouldn't budge. Shamefully, the UN backed him.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Hussain al-Shahristani, chairman of the standing committee of the Iraqi National Academy of Science, accurately predicted what would happen next. "Elections will be held in Iraq, sooner or later," he wrote. "The sooner they are held, and a truly democratic Iraq is established, the fewer Iraqi and American lives will be lost."

Thousands of lost Iraqi and American lives later, elections are scheduled to take place with part of the country in the grips of yet another invasion and much of it under martial law. As for voter rolls, the Allawi government is planning to use the oil-for-food lists, as was suggested and dismissed a year ago.

So the excuses were lies: If elections can be held now, they could have been held a year ago, when the country was vastly calmer. But that would have denied Washington the chance to install a puppet regime in Iraq, and possibly prevented Mr. Bush from winning a second term.

Is it any wonder that Iraqis are skeptical of the version of democracy being delivered to them by U.S. troops, or that elections have come to be seen not as tools of liberation but as weapons of war?

First, Iraq's promised elections were sacrificed in the interest of Mr. Bush's re-election hopes; next, the siege of Fallujah itself was shackled to these same interests. The fighter planes didn't even wait an hour after Mr. Bush finished his acceptance speech to begin their attack on Fallujah, and bombed the city at least six times through the next day and night.

The U.S. soldiers' first goal in Fallujah was to ambush the city's main hospital. Why? Apparently because it was the source of the "rumours" about high civilian casualties the last time U.S. troops laid siege to Fallujah, sparking outrage in Iraq and across the Arab world. "It's a centre of propaganda," an unidentified senior U.S. officer told The New York Times. Without doctors to count the dead, the outrage would presumably be muted; alas, attacking hospitals has sparked fresh outrage.

The Times reported that the Fallujah General Hospital was easy to capture, as the doctors and patients put up no resistance. But there was one injury, "an Iraqi soldier who accidentally discharged his Kalashnikov rifle, injuring his lower leg."

I think that means he shot himself in the foot. He's not the only one.

Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and Fences and Windows.

Quote for the people who can only read 2 paragraphs and are going to say that article is too long for them.

After some research it appears that "ps" is correct in English and "PS" is correct in American English. "P.S." or "PS." isn't.

Then again, you yanks never could spell properly, so I'm right

Amazing, I wonder why CNN doesn't use the same disclaimer.

Who cares about his punctuation? The guy's a redneck, read some of his posts.

Interesting. Guess we're both right.