^^I laughed at that "over-compensating member of the Wu-Tang Clan" part as well.
But I think he'd have to add the word 'Killah' somewhere in his name.
ROFL @ "Lord Sexgantic".
^^I laughed at that "over-compensating member of the Wu-Tang Clan" part as well.
But I think he'd have to add the word 'Killah' somewhere in his name.
ROFL @ "Lord Sexgantic".
Originally Posted by CharlesJones
My fav part was wizard of oz crow partp hahahaha
Non Ignorants
RIP
In 24 hours time someone in this thread will be receiving negative reputation. Things just got a little too Yammy for me at post 13.
Call me a pedant old chum, but how can dogma be personally concocted in this instance? Isn't your implication that these people are believers in some sort of western doctrine?
Dogma - A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Dogma- the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.
I can sense the Yam oozing out of your pores.....
Bahahahaha!
WTF is a 5 percent?
I'm not sure what you mean by "Yammy," but from what I observe, when you use that term around here, it means someone that disagrees with you.
Thanks for the add-on for my vocabulary, but NAAAH, I wouldn't give you that much credit.
You caught me slippin', I can wear that, for what it's worth. The ones that "disagreed" with the OP did so in a manner that didn't even touch on the points made in the OP. They "disagreed"(I used the quotes for a reason) in a way that was personally concocted, over-generalized, and dogmatic. A couple of commas, a conjunction, and a noun instead of adjective.
Interesting that you chose to go in so heavy on what was essentially a 21 word post. 4 posts in response, 2 embedded images, 2 embedded videos. And with all that, you too "disagree" with something other than the meaning behind a post. Don't play dumb
If you really want to go there: authority, established, and group or organization can be very subjective here.
C'mon doggie! All this for a simple, slightly less than thorough, use of language. Go in this heavy on something substantive. I do this at my leisure.
Good looking soul controller, 2 Times
Those are some interesting, and far reaching myths being propagated.
How about these more personal myths, or lies, or misinformation(s):
Robert Scheer
Los Angeles Times: Saving Pvt. Jessica Lynch, Take 2
Published May 23, 2003
Bad enough how they trivialized that woman's life in the face of death, but what they did to this solider and his family, may he rest in peace:In the 1998 film "Wag the Dog," political operatives employ special editing techniques to create phony footage that will engender public sympathy for a manufactured war. Now we find that in 2003 the real-life Pentagon's ability and willingness to manipulate the facts make Hollywood's story lines look tame.
After a thorough investigation, the British Broadcasting Corp. has presented a shocking dissection of the "heroic" rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch, as reported by the U.S. military and breathless American media.
"Her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived," the BBC concluded -- the polite British way of saying "liar, liar, pants on fire."
Though the Bush administration's shamelessly trumped-up claims about Iraq's alleged ties to Al-Qaida and 9/11 and its weapons of mass destruction take the cake for deceitful propaganda -- grand strategic lies that allow the U.S. seizure of Iraq's oil to appear to be an act of liberation -- the sad case of Lynch's exploitation at the hands of military spinners illustrates that the truth once again was a casualty of war.
Lynch, who says she has no memory of the events in question, has suffered enough in the line of duty without being made a propaganda pawn.
Sadly, almost nothing fed to reporters about Lynch's capture by Iraqi forces or her "rescue" by U.S. forces turns out to be true. Consider the April 3 Washington Post story on her capture headlined "She Was Fighting to the Death," which reported, based on unnamed military sources, that Lynch "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds," adding that she was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in.
It has since emerged that Lynch was neither shot nor stabbed, but rather suffered accident injuries when her vehicle overturned. A medical checkup by U.S. doctors confirmed the account of the Iraqi doctors, who said they had carefully tended her injuries, a broken arm and thigh and a dislocated ankle, in contrast to U.S. media reports that doctors had ignored Lynch.
Another report spread by news organizations nationwide claimed Lynch was slapped by an Iraqi security guard, and the U.S. military later insisted that an Iraqi lawyer witnessed this incident and informed them of Lynch's whereabouts. His credibility as a source, however, is difficult to verify because he and his family were whisked to the United States, where he was immediately granted political asylum and has refused all interview requests. His future was assured with a job with a lobbying firm run by former Republican Rep. Bob Livingston that represents the defense industry and a $500,000 book contract with HarperCollins, a company owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox network did much to hype Lynch's story, as it did the rest of the war.
But where the manipulation of this saga really gets ugly is in the premeditated manufacture of the rescue itself, which stains those who have performed real acts of bravery.
Eight days after her capture, American media trumpeted the military's story that Lynch was saved by Special Forces that stormed the hospital and, in the face of heavy hostile fire, managed to scoop her up and helicopter her out.
However, according to the BBC, which interviewed the hospital's staff, the truth appears to be that not only had Iraqi forces abandoned the area before the rescue effort but that the hospital's staff had informed the United States of this and made arrangements two days before the raid to turn Lynch over to the Americans. "But as the ambulance, with Pvt. Lynch inside, approached the checkpoint, American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch," the BBC reported.
"We were surprised," Dr. Anmar Uday told the BBC about the supposed rescue. "There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital. It was like a Hollywood film. [The U.S. forces] cried 'Go, go, go,' with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions," Uday said. "They made a show for the American attack on the hospital -- [like] action movies [starring] Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."
The footage from the raid, shot not by journalists but by soldiers with night-vision cameras, was fed in real time to the central command in Qatar. The video was artfully edited by the Pentagon and released as proof that a battle to free Lynch had occurred when it had not.
This fabrication has already been celebrated by an A&E special and will soon be an NBC movie. The Lynch rescue story -- a made-for-TV bit of official propaganda -- will probably survive as the war's most heroic moment, despite proving as fictitious as the stated rationales for the invasion itself.
If the movies, books and other renditions of "saving Private Lynch" were to be honestly presented, they'd expose this caper as merely one in a series of egregious lies marketed to us by the Bush administration.
^^Isn't that da guy who traded catching a football thrown at him for catching bullets in his body (by his own fellow soldiers) out of luv for his country?
Bahahahaha! For the record, the only post directed at you was the initial one. The others were just to satisfy my insatiable craving for YAM.
and when did I say I disagreed with you? How do you know I do?
Where did I indicate I disagree with Soul?
Call it a myth, a lie, mis-information, a cover up, media black-out, or whatever, but the mainstream U.S. media has had not a GODDAMN thing to say about this GODDAMN devil:
Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times said this about President Barack Obama on January 13, 2012:
This devil openly called for the assassination of the United States President as a means to make it easier for Israel to "obliterate" Iranians, Syrians, and whoever else he deems worthy of death.“Three, give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”
Some reports say Israel currently has 300 nuclear weapons, but they refuse to sign a non-proliferation agreement. Israel bombed an Iraqi power station in 1981. Israel has invaded Lebanon and killed over 20,000 Syrians and Palestinians. 2003, used military aggression in Gaza and Nablus. 2010 murdered 9 people on a flotilla on an aid mission that was in international waters.
Since the energy crisis in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. has been the aggressor in over 40 foreign attacks.
Iran is still yet to attack another Nation in modern history.
In Political Science 101, one learns about M.A.D. - mutually assured destruction. The use of nuclear weapons is an absolute last resort when the 2 opposing Nations both have them. With the knowledge of that military/political tenet, and the fact that all signs point to Iran not even having any real significant nuclear knowledge,(let alone weapons) who is really a threat to who? Who, historically, are the true global aggressors and murderers that should be feared by the masses?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks