Home | Community | Message Board



Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Media Literacy and Iran
    #3750893 - 02/08/05 02:23 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)



Who Needs Defusing? Iran or U.S. Media?
John Mohammadi


TIME magazine has a quick article about Iran entitled "Can the U.S. Defuse Iran?". After reading the article, I thought it would be a fun exercise in the analysis of misinformation in the US media. In total, I counted seven major lies out of the nine paragraphs. Besides the author's name and the date of the article, almost everything else was in the article was misleading, false, a half-truth, or spin. If you want to know why most Americans still think that WMDs have been found in Iraq, it's because of this sort of reporting.

So, here we go:

LIE 1: Headline "Can the U.S. Defuse Iran?"

FACT: Note the headline's use of the word "Defuse" in the headline. Bombs are "defused". By using the "defuse" word, the headline is suggesting that Iran is a danger. The headline is trying to shape the reader's attitudes towards Iran before they even read the article, by implying that Iran is a bomb which needs to be "defused."

LIE 2: "As it drags out the third round of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany with no hint of a resolution, Iran is doing little to build confidence in its good intentions."

FACT: This is an over lie. Rather than "dragging out" the negotiations, Iran has requested that the EU speed up the negotiations, and the EU has refused. See: here.

Secondly, the fact that Iran has allowed unfettered inspections and has signed the Additional Protocol and has agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment are all quite MAJOR evidence of good will -- Iran was under no obligation to do any of that. And what has Iran received in return, except more demands and threats?

LIE 3: "The IAEA has discovered that despite its agreement to temporarily suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, Iran was continuing to do maintenance work on a uranium-enrichment plant in southern Iran."

FACT: Routine maintenance which did not violate the pledge to temporarily suspend enrichment. Note also how TIME uses the word "discovered" -- as if it was a secret!

So what else has the IAEA "discovered"? Well, the Director General of the IAEA has said that the IAEA has received "good cooperation" from Iran and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, something TIME seems eager to ignore. (See here)

LIE 4:"The Iranians have allegedly finished designing a prototype of a detonator for a nuclear bomb, according to an opposition group based in Paris."

FACT: Gee, I wonder why TIME didn't see fit to name this "opposition group" -- the MEK, classified as a Marxist-Islamist terrorist organization by even the US itself. But I guess telling all of that information to the readers would have undercut TIME's attempt to demonize Iran.

LIE 5:"[Iranians] insist that they have a sovereign right to enrich uranium for peaceful, civilian purposes."

FACT: The right to enrich uranium is not something that only the Iranians "insist" upon -- it is an established principle of international law and a fundamental part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran doesn't have that right, then no other nation does either.

LIE 6: "Taking their cue from North Korea, the Iranians have seen 'that you can extend a negotiating process and still build nukes,' says Bruno Tertrais, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris."

FACT: Note how TIME uses the status of some researcher to bolster the claim that Iran is secretly building nukes, even though the IAEA has repeatedly said it has no such evidence (something which TIME refuses to mention.) This is a fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority" -- you're supposed to believe it just because someone who is supposedly an expert says so.

But have you ever heard of this Bruno guy before? Do you know if he is trustworthy? Or if TIME is really quoting him accurately? Is Bruno stating a fact, or merely his own opinion?

LIE 7: "Many experts question whether military strikes could be assured of taking out all the country's dispersed, well-hidden nuclear facilities. Intelligence on Iran's programs is inadequate..."

FACT: Note how on one hand TIME assumes that "well-hidden" nuclear sites exist in Iran, and on the other hand admits that the intelligence on Iran is inadequate. So, TIME, if the sites are so well-hidden, how do you know they exist?

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=173


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3750908 - 02/08/05 02:26 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

it looks more like personal opinion then lies. Saying defuse doesn't even equate to a lie. Fact: Israel already mentioned they would bomb Iran if they make nukes.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3751116 - 02/08/05 03:29 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

To me this is more of the author identifying misrepresentations and spin rather than pointing out literal undeniable lies.

I think he does a great job of illustrating how simple changes in the language can mislead people without...
Quote:


Lie
"an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive"




...lying... As i guess it would be a matter of opinion, whether or not deceit was intended, to everyone but the author.

Other than that there is the question of whether his "FACTS" are true, which I will leave up to someone other than myself to call into question and debate.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3752444 - 02/08/05 09:05 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

There's a sale on your favorites books right here:

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinHome.asp?sour_cd=WC00219


Edited by Great_Satan (02/08/05 09:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Great_Satan]
    #3752462 - 02/08/05 09:10 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3752509 - 02/08/05 09:22 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:


Who Needs Defusing? Iran or U.S. Media?
John Mohammadi


TIME magazine has a quick article about Iran entitled "Can the U.S. Defuse Iran?". After reading the article, I thought it would be a fun exercise in the analysis of misinformation in the US media. In total, I counted seven major lies out of the nine paragraphs. Besides the author's name and the date of the article, almost everything else was in the article was misleading, false, a half-truth, or spin. If you want to know why most Americans still think that WMDs have been found in Iraq, it's because of this sort of reporting.

So, here we go:

LIE 1: Headline "Can the U.S. Defuse Iran?"

FACT: Note the headline's use of the word "Defuse" in the headline. Bombs are "defused". By using the "defuse" word, the headline is suggesting that Iran is a danger. The headline is trying to shape the reader's attitudes towards Iran before they even read the article, by implying that Iran is a bomb which needs to be "defused."

And this is a LIE how? They are a religious oligarchy run by priests who have sponsored terrorist attacks for years and have embarked on a Uranium enrichment program while continuing to extend the range of their missiles. Seems pretty "explosive" to me. But, even if it didn't it wouldn't be a "lie."

LIE 2: "As it drags out the third round of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany with no hint of a resolution, Iran is doing little to build confidence in its good intentions."

FACT: This is an over lie. Rather than "dragging out" the negotiations, Iran has requested that the EU speed up the negotiations, and the EU has refused. See: here.

Linky no worky. And as far as whether they're doing anything to build confidence, well, that would be in the eye of the beholder, wouldn't it.

Secondly, the fact that Iran has allowed unfettered inspections and has signed the Additional Protocol and has agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment are all quite MAJOR evidence of good will -- Iran was under no obligation to do any of that. And what has Iran received in return, except more demands and threats?

What should they get? A pat on the head?


LIE 3: "The IAEA has discovered that despite its agreement to temporarily suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, Iran was continuing to do maintenance work on a uranium-enrichment plant in southern Iran."

FACT: Routine maintenance which did not violate the pledge to temporarily suspend enrichment. Note also how TIME uses the word "discovered" -- as if it was a secret!

So what else has the IAEA "discovered"? Well, the Director General of the IAEA has said that the IAEA has received "good cooperation" from Iran and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, something TIME seems eager to ignore. (See here)

Nonetheless, the statement is 100% accurate, by your own report. Is there such a thing as a 100% accurate "lie?" I didn't think so.

LIE 4:"The Iranians have allegedly finished designing a prototype of a detonator for a nuclear bomb, according to an opposition group based in Paris."

FACT: Gee, I wonder why TIME didn't see fit to name this "opposition group" -- the MEK, classified as a Marxist-Islamist terrorist organization by even the US itself. But I guess telling all of that information to the readers would have undercut TIME's attempt to demonize Iran.

Still, an accurate statement. Although I do admit that this one demands a certain skepticism regarding the source.

LIE 5:"[Iranians] insist that they have a sovereign right to enrich uranium for peaceful, civilian purposes."

FACT: The right to enrich uranium is not something that only the Iranians "insist" upon -- it is an established principle of international law and a fundamental part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran doesn't have that right, then no other nation does either.

Still a 100% accurate statement, thus, not a "lie.

LIE 6: "Taking their cue from North Korea, the Iranians have seen 'that you can extend a negotiating process and still build nukes,' says Bruno Tertrais, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris."

FACT: Note how TIME uses the status of some researcher to bolster the claim that Iran is secretly building nukes, even though the IAEA has repeatedly said it has no such evidence (something which TIME refuses to mention.) This is a fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority" -- you're supposed to believe it just because someone who is supposedly an expert says so.

But have you ever heard of this Bruno guy before? Do you know if he is trustworthy? Or if TIME is really quoting him accurately? Is Bruno stating a fact, or merely his own opinion?

Well, they are clearly reporting this guy's opinion. If you have some question about his credentials then link a source that casts doubt upon them. If you think they misquoted him then that would be a lie, but you offer no evidence of that. Thus, just for clarity, not a "lie."

LIE 7: "Many experts question whether military strikes could be assured of taking out all the country's dispersed, well-hidden nuclear facilities. Intelligence on Iran's programs is inadequate..."

FACT: Note how on one hand TIME assumes that "well-hidden" nuclear sites exist in Iran, and on the other hand admits that the intelligence on Iran is inadequate. So, TIME, if the sites are so well-hidden, how do you know they exist?

Ummm, because they said they did. You can easily get intelligence that points to a program's existence and still not know where it is located. Duh. Aside from that, the statement that "Some experts say" is completely accurate, and thus, once again, NOT A "LIE"







--------------------


Edited by zappaisgod (02/08/05 09:24 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3755497 - 02/09/05 12:26 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

>> Taking their cue from North Korea, [TIME]

Whether or not the article's contents can be seen as lies, as intentionally misleading, is up for discussion. Either way, categorizing Iran with North Korea, a nation which already has a reputation for being defiant and dangerous, is not journalism. It is not adherent to the facts. It is not objective reporting. It's just garbage.


>> The Iranians have allegedly finished designing a prototype of a detonator for a nuclear bomb, according to an opposition group based in Paris. [TIME]

Any journalist half-way interested in reporting the truth would be able to anticipate that the reader might well be very interested in knowing that the "opposition group based in Paris" is a self-proclaimed anti-democratic terrorist organization.

Suppose that justification for military action in Iraq came with these words: "Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat because Osama Bin Laden said so." Would you lend that any credibility? Now suppose that the justifcation came like this: "Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat because of intelligence we have received from an opposition group in Afghanistan." It's the same statement, only this time around it's a bit more convincing. Why did John Mohammadi choose the words he chose? Was he simply ignorant, or was he deliberately omitting vital information for the sake of promoting suspicion and paranoia against Iran?

At best, TIME reporter John Mohammadi is a very poor journalist, and TIME magazine has a very dysfunctional fact-checking department. At worst, he is a well-greased tailor of lies, and AOL Time-Warner is a peak-efficiency propaganda machine.

Speaking personally, I'm inclinced to believe that the article was written and published with the intent to portray Iran as "rebel nation", a "freedom hating" nation, or some other garbage, for the sake of conditioning the public to accept the possibility of further military aggression in the Middle East.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Ped]
    #3755576 - 02/09/05 12:43 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Ped writes:

Speaking personally, I'm inclinced to believe that the article was written and published with the intent to portray Iran as "rebel nation", a "freedom hating" nation, or some other garbage, for the sake of conditioning the public to accept the possibility of further military aggression in the Middle East.

The thing is, the government of Iran is in fact a freedom-hating government, and the largest remaining source of government-sponsored terrorists. And of course the Iranian government is in fact attempting to develop atomic weapons. Pointing that out is in no way distorting fact, much less lying.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3755974 - 02/09/05 02:35 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Thanks Zappa.

Quote:

I think he does a great job of illustrating how simple changes in the language can mislead people without...lying..




Ped,

At best, TIME reporter John Mohammadi is a very poor journalist, and TIME magazine has a very dysfunctional fact-checking department. At worst, he is a well-greased tailor of lies, and AOL Time-Warner is a peak-efficiency propaganda machine.



John Mohammdi is the author of this article, not the original TIME article.

Speaking personally, I'm inclinced to believe that the article was written and published with the intent to portray Iran as "rebel nation", a "freedom hating" nation, or some other garbage, for the sake of conditioning the public to accept the possibility of further military aggression in the Middle East.

I agree 100%. And I believe this was John's point. The original TIME article is chock full of language designed to attain the above end. Spin and misrepresentations, without blatant lies, the new school of propaganda. Even Zappa couldn't deny his "facts", though he could, within his right, opine differently on a couple.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3758339 - 02/09/05 09:58 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

I didn't even go after the "facts."  Too much research, while slamming his linguistic and internal logical nonsense was right there to be had.  Just cause I didn't take the time doesn't mean I couldn't do it. :cool:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3759821 - 02/10/05 02:08 AM (11 years, 9 months ago)

while slamming his linguistic and internal logical nonsense was right there to be had.

:yesnod:


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3761280 - 02/10/05 12:50 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

>> The thing is, the government of Iran is in fact a freedom-hating government, and the largest remaining source of government-sponsored terrorists. And of course the Iranian government is in fact attempting to develop atomic weapons. Pointing that out is in no way distorting fact, much less lying.

If this is so obvious, then why can't John Mohammadi write an article making this point by presenting the facts, without resorting to selective reporting and insinuation? When news reporters and television stations can't portray a nation as a threat without resorting to dishonest journalism, it casts doubt on the idea that the nation is a threat at all, or that they have such immediately hostile intentions. We saw that Iraq was a country still decimated from the previous Gulf War, that there was no immediate threat. Now the same insinuations are being made about Iran: what reason do we have to take it seriously?

It seems totally irrational that any nation would attack another simply because that nation is free. That another nation is free and democratic, how does this affect a nation organized as a monarchy? Why would the monarchial nation go so far out of it's way to terrorize and destroy a democratic nation on the other side of the world? "Freedom hating" is not a satisfactory explanation for the hostile actions of any nation, and when this is offered to us as justification for pre-emptive strikes in the name of defense, it leaves a huge logical gap that any intelligent person would beg to be filled.

Perhaps they're so pissed off because of the growing US and British military presence in the Middle East, and because every industrialized nation in the world has a sideways eye fixed on their natural resources, the natural resources of a sovereign nation with it's own unique form of government. I don't deny that Middle Easterners are very different people with different religious beliefs, and that the more radical one's might harbour hatred for the differences they see in Westerners, but it is just not sufficient to say that it's this hatred for differences which compells them into suicide bombings. There must be another motivation. There must be some kind of provocation.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Ped]
    #3761881 - 02/10/05 02:56 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Ped writes:

If this is so obvious, then why can't John Mohammadi write an article making this point by presenting the facts, without resorting to selective reporting and insinuation?

As was pointed out, Mohammadi was the author of the critique of the Time article.

As for why Time magazine chooses to be coy in their characterizations, I could speculate but what's the point? I gave up on Time and Newsweek as worthwhile sources of information decades ago.

It seems totally irrational that any nation would attack another simply because that nation is free.

It not only seems irrational, it is irrational. Yet unfree nations attack free ones all the time. See the history of the Twentieth Century. Democracies don't attack other democracies.

"Freedom hating" is not a satisfactory explanation for the hostile actions of any nation, and when this is offered to us as justification for pre-emptive strikes in the name of defense, it leaves a huge logical gap that any intelligent person would beg to be filled.

It may have escaped your attention that the players are no longer restricted to nation-states. It wasn't a nation-state that attacked America on September 11, 2001.

I don't deny that Middle Easterners are very different people with different religious beliefs, and that the more radical one's might harbour hatred for the differences they see in Westerners, but it is just not sufficient to say that it's this hatred for differences which compells them into suicide bombings.

I suggest you read some of the literature of the "Founding Fathers" of the jihadist movement. It's readily available in almost any mosque in the US, courtesy of the Saudi government.

There must be another motivation. There must be some kind of provocation.

There is motivation enough -- in their eyes. The West is ungodly. It's no accidental turn of phrase that the US is referred to as "The Great Satan". It's a deliberate characterization, not a facetious catch phrase.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Phred]
    #3761911 - 02/10/05 03:07 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

See the history of the Twentieth Century. Democracies don't attack other democracies.


No, they formulate propaganda and hire assassins to kill foreign officials likely to be elected by the citizenry.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/


--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide

"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Phred]
    #3764560 - 02/11/05 12:57 AM (11 years, 9 months ago)

Okay, let's dispense with the simplistic delusion that they hate the U.S. because of our freedoms. Are your forgetting the statements made by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and OBL? Both of them have stated quite explicitly their reasons. To sum it up: U.S. foreign policy.

Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, major league asshole and the convicted master mind of the first attack on The World Trade Center said the following as part of his statement to the court (as published in The New York Times on January 9, 1998 Page B4):
    You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.

    You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.

    And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years...

    The government in its summations and opening said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites.
Is it your opinion that he is actually saying that The World Trade Center was attacked because of our freedoms?


Now let's get it from the other horse's... ah, ass's mouth. In 1998, Osama Bin Laden stated the following,
    The American government, we think, is an agent that represents the Israel inside America. If we look at sensitive departments in the present government like the defense department or the state department, or sensitive security departments like the CIA and others, we find that Jews have the first word in the American government, which is how they use America to carry out their plans in the world and especially the Muslim world.

    The presence of Americans in the Holy Land supports the Jews and gives them a safe back. The American government, in a time where there are millions of Americans living on the street and those living below the standard of living and below the poverty line, we find the American government turning toward helping Israel in occupying our land and building settlements in the Holy Land.

    The American government is throwing away the lives of Americans in Saudi Arabia for the interests of the Jews. The Jews are a people who Allah cited in his holy book the Koran as those who attacked prophets with lies and killings, and attacked Mary and accused her of a great sin. They are a people who killed Allah's prophets - would they not kill, rape and steal from humans?

    They believe that all humans are created for their use, and found that the Americans are the best-created beings for that use. The American Government is driving America to destruction and those same ones have no doubts about America being a superpower in the next decade.

    So, we tell the American as a people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers, and American mothers in general, if they value their lives and those of their children, find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interest of the Jews.
Can you please explain how this translates to being upset about the freedoms in the U.S.?


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Edited by Prosgeopax (02/11/05 01:19 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Media Literacy and Iran [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #3771113 - 02/12/05 04:02 PM (11 years, 9 months ago)

hey who wants to think about the REAL REASONS for terrorism when we have mindless slogans?

"they attacked us because they hate freedom!" :rolleyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* UN Officials Find Evidence of Iran's Secret Uranium Enrichment Plant
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 1,580 30 04/11/06 02:32 PM
by Phred
* Escalation of recent iran activites. The_Red_Crayon 698 9 07/02/08 09:00 PM
by Minstrel
* Iran enriches uranium Basilides 1,060 15 04/12/06 07:22 PM
by Asante
* Exile Opposition: Iran Hiding Another Nuke Site wingnutx 336 1 10/13/03 03:18 PM
by Learyfan
* US Nat'l Intel Report Says Iran Stopped Nuclear Program 4 Yrs Ago
( 1 2 all )
Madtowntripper 2,424 28 12/06/07 05:28 PM
by lonestar2004
* Iran + the United Nations = Sanity???? SirTripAlot 660 9 04/18/06 11:34 PM
by SirTripAlot
* So, whats the deal with Iran?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Spanki 4,327 91 11/23/07 04:50 AM
by Seuss
* Kerry would still supply Iran with nuclear fuel Great_Satan 846 9 10/10/04 02:12 PM
by Medley

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,570 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.146 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.