posted
I was just reading about the report of the commission on 9/11. I was going to post a link to it from the paper I usually read - the Guardian - but thought I'd look round and see what others are saying about it. After all, if I use only left-of-centre sources, certain people might pick up on that.
What I found was even more interesting than the report itself. That can be summed up in about three points:-
No connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq
Original plan called for 10 planes in 9/11 attack
Al-Qaeda still a threat
That last is a given. But what struck me was how the other two were tackled.
In the US, CNN.com led with point two in big letters, and no mention of the rest - until you read the actual article whereupon you found it halfway down. The New York Times and the Washington Post have both on their front page, but no prizes for guessing which was at the top in much bigger letters! The Fox News website sidelines the 10-plane bit in favour of the evils of another international organisation - the Red Cross!
I'm not too sure which are the big papers in Canada, but Tahna's favourite the Toronto Star also leads with the lack of any links to Iraq.
In the UK, Murdock papers the Times and the Sun make no mention of it at all (that I could find on their front pages). The omission in the latter is no surprise - after all, Big Brother is on TV in the UK right now - but in the case of the former? Then again, rival broadsheet the Telegraph also ignores the story, as does the Mirror - previously the Anti-Iraq-War Paper under editor Piers Morgan, it's now the Big Big Brother Paper since he got fired. The Guardian and the BBC News website favour the No-Iraq links over the 10-plane story.
In France, Le Monde goes with Iraq, while Paris-Soir favours the 10 planes. Germany's Die Welt highlights the Iraq part. And the Bild Online. . . well, it has to be seen to be believed. 8)
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
The Toronto Star doesn't count. The Guardian doesn't count. And you know that. Only Fox is legit.
I will have to point out that since we are in Election Gear, in the actual paper, it gets full coverage in the front page. Frankly, we're all tired about this bullshit about Iraq and Al Qaeda in cahoots. The only person who seems to whine about us against invading Iraq is Stephen Harper, the right-wing conservative American-In-Canadian-Clothing. And he's predicted to win this election.
And if you haven't forgotten, the Red Cross is seen as hampering peace efforts by sporting big bullseye signs that bear the marking: Hit Me Here.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
See, here in America, our government is standing behind the Iraq / Al Qaeda story.
Mr. Cheney, as late as Monday, was out there hawking the Hussein "had long established ties with Al Qaeda" line, and Mr. Bush is apparently backing him up. More than that, or because of it, or because of just they just don�t care, I would guess that a majority of Americans believe it.
And our feckless media, which has apparently developed a pathological fear of being called liberal or unpatriotic by the right-wing noise machine, has pretty much given up their role in holding this administration to account for the things they say and do.
[ June 16, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"And the Bild Online. . . well, it has to be seen to be believed."
Why, just because one of their front-page stories is that they have a single topless photo of one of the actresses from the next Harry Potter film?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I remember getting catalogues, like Sears catalogues, with sections for uncensored hardcore pornography videos, with the covers on display and everything, back when I lived there.
THEY ARE CRAZY, THOSE GUYS.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I am currently doing agency work for the Red Cross, and I've found out that they already hate the Daily Mail since the paper ran a "Red Cross cancels Christmas" story two years running. What does FOX News say about them?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Something about the Red Cross sheltering Iraqi terrorists. It's gone now, replaced by a big thing about the 9/11 report - and Bush's repeated insistence that there was a link is up there twice. No mention of the commission saying there was no link.
quote:Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine.
Mr. Bush and company are now saying that Iraq met with Al Qaeda, once or twice, and Iraq then did nothing to help Al Qaeda.
And that, according to Mr. Bush, means that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a "relationship."
I've seen Burt Young at the Daily Grill in Studio City a couple of times though I've never spoken to him. Had I spoken to him, I guess that would mean, according to the logic of the Bush adminisration, that we have a relationship.
Here is Mr. Bush's steel-trap logical argument:
quote:The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Well, there you go. That about does it, let's move on. Mr. Bush, of course, does move on, he moves on and sings a couple of choruses of 'Saddam Hussein Was A Bad Man.'
To shore up this implication, Mr. Bush makes mention of Abu Zarqawi:
quote:Bush said Hussein had "provided safe haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."
Considering this, that takes a certain amount of gall.
The insidious part is that by tossing Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda into the same sentence as many times as possible, Mr. Bush and company are clearly trying to lead the public to places where they can not honestly go in flat out statements. They parse, they cajole, they imply. And in doing so, they point the way through insinuation and hope the American people will make the next logical step unaided.
And that, apparently, has happened:
quote:More than two-thirds of Americans expressed a belief last year that Iraq was behind the attacks, and Cheney said at the time, "It's not surprising people make that connection."
The intersting thing about that is Mr. Bush said:
quote:This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Which apparently means next to nothing as compared to the stream of implications.
But it also begs this question, since the War On Terror� was predicated by the 9/11 attacks, why then are we in Iraq?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:But it also begs this question, since the War On Terror� was predicated by the 9/11 attacks, why then are we in Iraq?
It distracts nicely from the fact that we have not caught Bin laden or confirmed his death, the rising budget deficit, corperate greed and the ever-popular 9/11 post-game fingerpointing and armchair quarterbacking.
Plus, Saddam was a dick and should've been toppled years ago.
Now comes the real question: if we leave iraq and it's a stable (ha ha) government, do we go after Saudi Arabia or wait for the whabbists to overthrow the royal family first?
Reports this week confirm that there is no direct evidence between the Saudi government and the 9/11 terrorists (something the saudis say is vindication for them) but at the same time, americans are being kidnapped and beheaded by saudi terrorists.
I think we invaded the wrong country.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Well, 9/11 was partly planned in Berlin, as I understand it, so you might even invade Germany by that sort of logic.
Only if it was planned by germans, executed by almost all german terrorists, only if the german government is kept in charge at the whim of (and in fear of) fanatics and only if Germany encouraged people to attack America based on a narrow view of religion while organizing fundraisers for the families of terrorists.
So Germany is safe.......for now.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
