Nyarlathotep Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 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) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 We could bring in means of communication after the pulse has taken its effect, via satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 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 !" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 I guess that would happen, but that's what those savage reporters are there for ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 I guess that would happen, but that's what those savage reporters are there for ;DAfter it goes through a US and co filter ? ;DAnyways, I guess only time will tell if the weapon in question is going to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htmSo 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Well they can isolate the "blast radius" and lower it I'm sure, of course this may take a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 The government does have the right to edit, or take out totally, any filming or picture that may hurt national security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Sure, but reports of civilian casualties would certainly be broadcast as has been done in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 In the past, an e-bomb hasn't taken out communications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 As I said, our reporters on the scene would get the word from the street and get it out. They have pulitzers to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Now we are going in circles? The government might not let the media have as much freedom since the Gulf War... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 I don't relly see that happening. reporters can be some persistant S.O.B.'s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 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 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 21, 2003 Author Share Posted February 21, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 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 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 21, 2003 Author Share Posted February 21, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 21, 2003 Author Share Posted February 21, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 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 :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 21, 2003 Author Share Posted February 21, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Woah stop with the Pyramid quoting :O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.