It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "maniacs," "irrational" argument by fear-mongerers is getting old

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I was watching tonight's "Scarborough Country" where they were talking about the potential threat Iran poses. When Joe Scarborough told Monica Crowley that at the least the Iranian leadership would understand they would be obliterated should Iran strike the U.S., Crowley answered by saying that the Iranian leadership were simply that crazy.

Am I the only one getting tired of this *stuff*? Its just pathetic the sources of reasoning these fear-mongerers (pretty much the entire U.S. right-wing) dish out in an attempt to suppress Americans and make them fear and hate other countries. Crowley draws her conclusions from the statements made by the Iranian leadership, yet she still offers nothing that proves that the Iranian leadership is unstable. If she is using the statements made by the leadership as her sole source of inspiration, then you could say so much about our own leadership.

As if it wasn't enough, Crowley concludes by saying there is no way the situation will be resolved peacefully and that the Iranians are conspiring to attack America and they will no matter what. Again, providing absolutely no evidence to back up her claim. Its not even a gut feeling, from the way I see it. She wants war, but she won't admit it, neither will others of her ilk.

The fear-mongering going on in America is incredibly worrisome.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 18-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
She wants war, but she won't admit it, neither will others of her ilk.


At least the Iranians will come right and say they want war, right?

I was totaly against the Iraqi war and no one here can call me a warmonger.......but unless every news agency in the world is lying you have to admit some of the talk coming out of Iran is troublesome.

Do you think that it would be better if they kinda toned down the "wipeout all the Jews" talk and constant threats to America.

If I go up to someone twice my size and start telling him I am going to kill him and his entire family should I be suprised when he blacks my eye?



[edit on 18-4-2006 by Amuk]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I wish every day that Iran would do the right thing and start turning their rhetoric way down, but my point is that this third-party (is it really third-party) fear-mongering from members of the media is creating a situation far more dangerous than it would be without it.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
If the Iranians don't get nuclear capabilities soon they're gonna get their *rses kicked.

The US administration know full well they don't have to overly justify their actions, as long as they have a majority of the population gleefully accepting as fact anything they choose to claim even if those claims turn out to be fabrications. As long as it does not appear to impact their daily lives they'll be more than happy to have a conflict/war that doesn't take place on home soil.


Originally posted by Amuk
If I go up to someone twice my size and start telling him I am going to kill him and his entire family should I be suprised when he blacks my eye?


You would do this without reason?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
The problem with American media and American political commentary for the public is that it is extremely American-centric. This may sound obvious, but it's more subtle than just a heavy focus on America and American concerns. More often than not it fails to consider the non-American context of the actions or statements of its subjects. Iran is the perfect example- there's a president there who frequently rattles the sabre and spouts belligerant (and irresponsible) comments. Here in America, the talking heads try to portray this as directed specifically at Americans, as if his comments were for American consumption before they were for Iranian consumption. Even when his comments address America specifically, no mention is made of the fact that all Presidents, all poliiticians, speak first and foremost to their own constituency.

So, when Ahmadinejad makes a comment about wiping Israel off the face of the map, or having nuclear technology, or responds to America's threats with threats of his own, what we get from the US media, particularly the hawkish side, is an assumption that all this should be taken at face value. Rarely, if ever, do we get an analysis of what lies behind the scenes- where the power really lies in Iran, talks in Iraq with Iran, what Iranian politicians have been coming to the US to discuss security situations, what the opposition in Iran is doing, but above all, what the effect of Ahmadinejad's comments on his own people is, or is meant to be. If such comments are irresponsible, it is equally irresponsible to try to present them as nothing more than a cause for war. It's very possible that Iran represents a grave threat to American security (and almost certainly it does to Israeli security), but these conclusions should be made from a deeper analysis of what's going on vis-a-vis Iran and the world at large, not based upon the comments of an outspoken ex-mayor whose real power in Iran is not foregone.

The problem exists on a bigger scale- perhaps its endemic to American society. When analyzing Iraq's WMD's, for example, we took Saddam's statements (or lack thereof) as proof that he had or was working on WMD's up past the mid-90's. We were thinking solely in terms of US vs. Iraq, and never considered the fact that maybe Saddam had to bluff because he was more afraid of Iran than he was of the U.S.- which he had good cause to be, given the bloody wars he fought with Iran and the influence Iran could wield on elements within Iraq, etc. We saw Saddam's every act and statement as his role in some kind of exclusive dialogue with America. We failed to see the facts in their bigger context.

It could be unfair to call this an American-specific problem, but the media in America is big enough and pervasive enough to make it capable of changing people's narrow analyses of world affairs if it only took the time to do so. But the sad truth is, too many people will just switch channels if the news they are watching forces them to think beyond their comfort level.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka


Originally posted by Amuk
If I go up to someone twice my size and start telling him I am going to kill him and his entire family should I be surprised when he blacks my eye?


You would do this without reason?


What reason is worth having their country bombed out of existence? Or are you claiming they arent boasting of wiping out Israel and sending waves of suicide bombers against America?

What reason can they have for wanting to wipe out an entire group of people.

Would yall be so generous if this was Israel or America giving speaches to the world about how they were going to wipe out all the Arabs in the middle east?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   


You have voted koji_K for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


That was a great and important post, koji. One of those things we know except we know it unconsciously.

What I find most upsetting is that the "Great Media Debate" is a matter of percieved liberal or conservative bias. First off, its a conservative bias, but that's not even the problem. The problem is that it literally is now a propaganda machine that never really allows Americans to truly understand the true complexity of the issue, as you say. I call this the "Fox News Effect." Its not necessarily about having a conservative bias, its about funneling all this news so that its looked at from one form of analysis.

Yes, the news should allow people to understand the situation in terms of how it effects, but you can't do that from it being funneled into a tube.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I agree,just because the US is bigger ,would you want someone dictating to you how your going to run your country?,hell no you'd be pissed off too,kind of reminds me of a big bully picking on little kids,trying to force their issues on someone else,I say let's stay out of others house and concentrate on cleaning up our own house,no one has threatened us so leave them the hell alone



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Its not just constant fear being promoted by all these homenuts, its most definatedly hatred and determination in separating the parties.

Does (The beautiful)
Monica realize that this mess, all of it goes back to her beloved Bush? He started it all. Blame Bush.

If it were not for him, we wouldnt have gone into Iraq. If it werent for him and his mouth, Iran would probably would still be in the shadows lying dormant for some time. If it were not for him bullying Iran, that other nut case over there would not be threatening to wipe out Israel.

How much poo can one person stirr?

She's nothing but a dumb blonde and should keep her off-center mouth shut.


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 18-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It happened before Bush too. Its been a problem for such a long time, where the media will find any and every reason to consider a percieved threat without ever looking into the deeper context of the statements and the issue, as Koji points out.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The "maniacs," "irrational" argument by fear-mongerers is getting old


First up, this post is nothing but your opinion, backed up by nothing but your point of view and conclusions based on your interpretation of reality. Your reality is formed by the news that you choose to see, and of course those sources represent the bias that suits your opinions. (Just like everybody else)

So,

This post and your point of view is just as "old" and "worrisome" as the very opinions you protest in this thread.

MY NEWS and how I INTERPET it tells me I should be worried about Iran, and that maybe Iran was a better target against terrorism than Iraq ever was. That’s my opinion based on the news I get from the sources I choose to get my information from. The bias that I take as truth, the same as the bias you choose to accept as yours.

Bottom line? Your opinion is as wrong to me as mine is to you.

Iran is a threat, they (the government at least) are maniacal fanatics who want nothing but the demise of Israel and anything Western. After all, the very president of the country says those very things himself, daily. If your news source represents anything but those actual words out of the Iranians leaders mouth, then your news sources are bogus. If it’s just a matter of you interpreting those words as meaning something different or peaceful, then maybe you are part of the problem...



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Iran is a threat, they (the government at least) are maniacal fanatics who want nothing but the demise of Israel and anything Western.


That's not fair, I'm sure they want other things too.


Anyways, I don't really agree with the notion that Iran's prez is only saying those things for the consumption of Iran. As has been said before, the same argument could have been made about Hitler. When Bush's dumb arse speaks, everybody takes his words as gospel, but give Ahmadinejad a "he doesn't really mean it" pass. I am becoming more and more convinced that if the Bush administration really wants to attack Iran, Ahmadinejad is working for them. Every day it's a new threat or a new progress report on their nuke program, just yesterday Iran announced they are speeding up and enhancing their enrichment process. WTF? Don't they know when to shut up? It's gotta be intentional. If it's not all part of the plan, that should be ample evidence that they really are insane.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Does every word that comes out of your idiot President's mouth reflective of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of every American?


Then relax. The President of Iran is a public official, and he says things that he thinks his constituents want to hear.

Jeez. I'm sure there are lots of people in Iran who just wish their president would shut the hell up.

And anyone who believes what they hear on CNN ought to have their head examined.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Does every word that comes out of your idiot President's mouth reflective of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of every American?


Of course not, and nobody said that of Iran. However, the hopes and dreams and aspirations of every American (or any country for that matter) have no bearing on the actions of their corrupt governments and militaries.



Then relax. The President of Iran is a public official, and he says things that he thinks his constituents want to hear.


Again, I'm sure many said the same thing about Hitler. If Bush were to say he wanted to see Iran destroyed, I guarantee you wouldn't just blow it off as rhetoric.



Jeez. I'm sure there are lots of people in Iran who just wish their president would shut the hell up.


Probably, but those people won't have access to the "red button", will they?



And anyone who believes what they hear on CNN ought to have their head examined.


Just curious, what news sources do you find credible?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I cannot wait till Bush is out of office because I want to know then who many of you will blame for the issues that Iran has created with the pursuit of nuclear weapons. This is not a ploitical issue, and Bush is a figurehead for one of the strongest countries in the world. If we were so omnipotent, Irans nuke facilities would be glass parking lots.

Our president may state things like I consulted the lord for guidance, but he never said my God told me to wipe Muslims off the planet. Iran is gling down a road that they will not be able to make a u-turn from and it is hard to see a compromise that does not include aome type of military action.

I beleieve that they will have a self produced weapon by years end, and that they already have acquired warheads and are waiting for our first strike. The technology is available from anyone from Libya to NK, China to Russia.

This is not fear mongering, this is reality.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
27id:

Of course not, and nobody said that of Iran. However, the hopes and dreams and aspirations of every American (or any country for that matter) have no bearing on the actions of their corrupt governments and militaries.


Actually, what people are reacting to in this thread and elsewhere is pretty much only what the President of Iran keeps saying, not the Iranian people.


Just curious, what news sources do you find credible?


Not any one source, I prefer to use a source from the newswire then find corroborating evidence elsewhere. Unless I can find multiple credible sources, I don’t really trust any media source.



esdad71:

I beleieve that they will have a self produced weapon by years end, and that they already have acquired warheads and are waiting for our first strike.


Based on what? A magic crystal ball? Tea leaves? The wildly disconnected thoughts racing through your mind?

Do you in fact have any corroborating evidence backing up any of this, or is this emanating from your back orifice, as I suspect.



[edit on 18-4-2006 by Jakomo]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It is a tactical thought based on Irans actions. If they were to attack first, they would be blacklisted by the worl community. However, if they hold back and piss off enough countries before an attack, they will render the support of other countries and it will be accepted. I got the theory from reading many articles and through reserach, not watching FOx as you stated is only for the mentally challeneged, right?

So where do you get your news. prisonplanet.com maybe?

You might want to tone down your mood too, or i'll take care of that back orafice for you. OK?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Does every word that comes out of your idiot President's mouth reflective of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of every American?


Then relax. The President of Iran is a public official, and he says things that he thinks his constituents want to hear.

Jeez. I'm sure there are lots of people in Iran who just wish their president would shut the hell up.

And anyone who believes what they hear on CNN ought to have their head examined.



This statement has totally drained any credibility you could have possibly of had left.

My president, like him or not (I certainly dont), is not threatening to destroy entire races of people in the open media on a daily basis based on nothing but personal agenda and religious right.

Please quote one refference from president Bush where he states "In the name of my Christian God, I hope all of XXXXX people will be destroyed."

And yes, thats exactly what the leader if Iran says every day.

You are lost in outer space to compare that to your statement.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
One thing.........lets stop the threats and such. If you cant play nice get out of my sandbox.

Second......

I have ONE question I would like to ask......

If Bush went on TV and pretty much every night said the (Pick your country) should be wiped off the face of the map, annihilated, destroyed, etc.

How many of you saying Iran is "just kidding" would say the same about Bush?
No changing the subject, side shuffling, or rants of secret Reptilian Zionest bases under your local mall.

Just a straight answer



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The president of Iran doesn't make news if he isn't blurting out insanities.

Him SAYING he wants to wipe out Israel and him DOING it are MILES apart.

When was the last time Iran invaded a country? 20 years?

George W. Bush invades countries based on LIES and contrary to international law.

WTF do you think Iran thinks when it is in the Axis Of Evil, and the first country has been invaded already? Illegally. Disastrously.

The USA makes it a POLICY to threaten Iran and any country it wants to. Whenever it wants to.

And it has the actual MIGHT to do it. That;s the difference.

It can be taken seriously.

I would love to know when US national security first started to include all Israeli lands, because that's the only country Iran can hit.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join