The "e-bomb" may be used in Iraq

[Nyarlathotep]

To get back on topic, if they would use this weapon in the first post of this thread, would that mean we have to hear all that's happening from what the fighting countries tell us (apart from Iraq obviously as they can't communicate) ?

[Acriku]

We could bring in means of communication after the pulse has taken its effect, via satellite.

[Nyarlathotep]

What I mean is, we'll only be able to get one side of the story. I doubt that Iraq will be allowed to use US communications :)

*Saddam* "Report to the world that we lost civiliants lives during bombardment !"

*Nameless helper* "Sir, we lost all means of communication !"

*Saddam* "ehhrr... George, buddy, can we use your com links for a little while?"

*Nameless Bush helper* "Sir, Iraq civiliants got killed in a bombardment by our forces"

*Bush* "We killed civiliants ? Ehhrrr... we did render their communication useless right?"

*Nameless helper* "Sir, Yes Sir"

*Bush* " So no worries then. the poor bastards can't communicate !"

[Acriku]

I guess that would happen, but that's what those savage reporters are there for ;D

[Nyarlathotep]

I guess that would happen, but that's what those savage reporters are there for ;D

After it goes through a US and co filter ? ;D

Anyways, I guess only time will tell if the weapon in question is going to be used.

[Gobalopper]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

[Nyarlathotep]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

So if this

They are concerned its use could alienate the Iraqi populace by crippling Baghdad's phone and electrical systems and, hence, the city's hospital and emergency-services infrastructure.

turns out to be true, let's pray they're not going to use it...

[Acriku]

Well they can isolate the "blast radius" and lower it I'm sure, of course this may take a while.

[Miles]

What I mean is, we'll only be able to get one side of the story. I doubt that Iraq will be allowed to use US communications :)

*Saddam* "Report to the world that we lost civiliants lives during bombardment !"

*Nameless helper* "Sir, we lost all means of communication !"

*Saddam* "ehhrr... George, buddy, can we use your com links for a little while?"

*Nameless Bush helper* "Sir, Iraq civiliants got killed in a bombardment by our forces"

*Bush* "We killed civiliants ? Ehhrrr... we did render their communication useless right?"

*Nameless helper* "Sir, Yes Sir"

*Bush* " So no worries then. the poor bastards can't communicate !"

Sorry, buddy, but our press would report such caualties, they are not restricted to one view as other country's media are. You have listened to too much of your one-sided media's propoganda.

[Acriku]

The government does have the right to edit, or take out totally, any filming or picture that may hurt national security.

[Miles]

Sure, but reports of civilian casualties would certainly be broadcast as has been done in the past.

[Acriku]

In the past, an e-bomb hasn't taken out communications.

[Miles]

As I said, our reporters on the scene would get the word from the street and get it out. They have pulitzers to win.

[Acriku]

Now we are going in circles? The government might not let the media have as much freedom since the Gulf War...

[Miles]

I don't relly see that happening. reporters can be some persistant S.O.B.'s

[Miles]

In fact, I just saw a program "newsnight with Aaron Brown" in which they discussed the media's role in a new war. The Pentagon has released a plan for reporters. Although, issues of national security (troop postitions, numbers, tactics etc...) will be monitored, they will have more freedom than in '91. We will get good information from different angles and viewpoints. The American public would not stand for less. Too bad other countries aren't the same or maybe some of this hate mongering of the U.S. would diminish.

[Nyarlathotep]

Miles, it's not that other countries are so hate mongering I think. I think one of the issues that other countries have is the way the US government tries to "push things" and the "demanding attitude" towards other countries. Note that I put it between brackets, as I have no other way of describing it.

I believe that almost everyone thinks that something needs to be done about Iraq. The discussion I think is the way things are going right now. It seems that no matter what another country says, the US government will do whatever it likes and disregards any negativity. If they are going to disregard any negativity, why ask for something in the first place then ?

And about my comment about the communication, maybe I should have posted a smiley after the *saddam* & *Bush* thing.

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

[emprworm]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

[Nyarlathotep]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

So all that's being said about the US government should be positive, otherwise it's propoganda ?

[emprworm]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

So all that's being said about the US government should be positive, otherwise it's propoganda ?

its propoganda until supported with evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

btw: what specific thing are we talking about that is being accused of being propoganda?

[Nyarlathotep]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

So all that's being said about the US government should be positive, otherwise it's propoganda ?

its propoganda until supported with evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

btw: what specific thing are we talking about that is being accused of being propoganda?

It doesn't matter what people bring on as evidence, it's always been waved away.

As for the btw part (and talk about proving things):

Sorry, buddy, but our press would report such caualties, they are not restricted to one view as other country's media are. You have listened to too much of your one-sided media's propoganda.

[emprworm]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

So all that's being said about the US government should be positive, otherwise it's propoganda ?

its propoganda until supported with evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

btw: what specific thing are we talking about that is being accused of being propoganda?

It doesn't matter what people bring on as evidence, it's always been waved away.

As for the btw part (and talk about proving things):

Sorry, buddy, but our press would report such caualties, they are not restricted to one view as other country's media are. You have listened to too much of your one-sided media's propoganda.

was evidence brought on that was waived away? If so, what was it? Just waiving away evidence is not good. Please restate it here and I will not just waive it away without analysis.

[Nyarlathotep]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

So all that's being said about the US government should be positive, otherwise it's propoganda ?

its propoganda until supported with evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

btw: what specific thing are we talking about that is being accused of being propoganda?

It doesn't matter what people bring on as evidence, it's always been waved away.

As for the btw part (and talk about proving things):

Sorry, buddy, but our press would report such caualties, they are not restricted to one view as other country's media are. You have listened to too much of your one-sided media's propoganda.

was evidence brought on that was waived away? If so, what was it? Just waiving away evidence is not good. Please restate it here and I will not just waive it away without analysis.

LOL, I've already proivded you with evidence (in several cases), which you bluntly waved away. I was hoping you replied the way you did. You've just proven my whole point. Thank you :)

[emprworm]

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

because nothing is said that is positive.

So all that's being said about the US government should be positive, otherwise it's propoganda ?

its propoganda until supported with evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

btw: what specific thing are we talking about that is being accused of being propoganda?

It doesn't matter what people bring on as evidence, it's always been waved away.

As for the btw part (and talk about proving things):

Sorry, buddy, but our press would report such caualties, they are not restricted to one view as other country's media are. You have listened to too much of your one-sided media's propoganda.

was evidence brought on that was waived away? If so, what was it? Just waiving away evidence is not good. Please restate it here and I will not just waive it away without analysis.

LOL, I've already proivded you with evidence (in several cases), which you bluntly waved away. I was hoping you replied the way you did. You've just proven my whole point. Thank you :)

well for that I apologize. Please do me the curtosey now and either paste a link to the evidence, or restate it so I can discuss it. I am hoping your next post will be the link or restating of the evidence. thank you.

[Dunenewt]

Woah stop with the Pyramid quoting :O