*DAMN R6 Forum

Throughout the day i have been watching in growing horror the unfolding horrific events of the Siege of a school in russia. Hundreds of Adults have been killed, shot while trying to escape, caught up in explosions when terrorists detinated bombs strapped to themselves, or by the booby trapped building they were being held in. I cannot describe the images of burnt corpses of tiny children scattered in the rubble.

There are no words to describe what has happend.

News links(or turn on your tv):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/international/europe/03CND-RUSS.html?hp

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/03/russia.school/index.html

yeah, its a pity when children gets involved. Those independance wars are from another age, price of freedom is always heavy...

Maybe I am being very reactionist, but incase you have not heard, Chechen terrorist under the command of *spits on ground* Samil Basayev have taken hostage 1000 hostages in a school. This included for the most part children. The satanists threatened to execute 20 children for every one insurgent killed by the Russian Federal Forces including the Interior Ministry, Special Police, and OMON.

Here, do not take my word for it, just read anything in the NY times or here in the Moscow Times. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/09/03/300.html (http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/09/03/300.html) As a Russian soldier said, "Can we just shoot the dogs?"

I would be the last person to object.

terrorists deserves to die.

I dont see any reasons to kill all the Chechens though, since i'm sure all arent terrorists: they're looking for independance apparently. They want freedom from the Russians, like anybody else.

I thought Chechens were Muslims, not Satanists. But I'm all for Russia taking out terrorists.

However I do have to ask the question. Russia is fairly aggressive in dealing with Chechen terror as it is...and it isn't diminishing the terror. Israel is aggressive with Palestinians, yet it isn't diminishing terror. The US has been fairly aggressive with terrorists in Afghanistan and more so Iraq, and terrorism has increased. Maybe the aggressive approach isn't working.

I think a "sensitive" approach is needed with more small special forces groups who can enact very focused strikes. The problem with the aggressive approaches has been that they are so broad (though not quite kill all Chechens, or as my dad suggests nuking a town in Iraq to "show them") that they invariably kill many innocents and increase resistance to those who attack. Instead of having locals be upset with the terrorists, they are convinced to be upset with the other force.

we all remember how Russia handeld the previous hostage crisis, when they gased the place killing terrosists AND most of the hostages...

Oh Jesus, Well first up bobby this is a lot worse than last time, hundreds and hundreds are dead, and if the death toll is anything lower than 500 or more i will be astonished.

Russians said they didn't want to go in an assault and were going to sit back and try and talk to the hostage takers (given what happend last time)

Yesterday morning somehitng happend - whether it was an accidental explosion or somthing wasn't clear but a group of children tried to escape - the hostage takers shot at their legs as they tried to run - then a large explosion as one woman apprently detonated the explosives packed around her, and other tripped accidently fell and exploded. - All hell broke loose. Civilians outside started shooting and the russian military and sf decided  they had no choice they had to go in then or never - they rushed in.
Mines had been placed around the gym, and bombs attached from the roof of the gym - when these went of they blew out one wall of the gym and the roof came down - god knows how many children in there were crushed and burnt alive, you cannot comprehend the image of...

The russians seemed totally unprepared, they failed to even corden of the school - there was no plan on what they would do if they had to go in, and i fear many many childrens lives were lost in the ensuding chaos.

As they moved into the school and were beginning the 'rescue' process fighting was still goign on in surrounding buildings - for a moment a ITN (UK news) Cameraman actually caught to of the hostage takers - masked and in full black combat gear, upstairs in a room - shooting down at the chaotic russian troops.


If i remember rightly it wasn't exactly the gas that killed them - the Russian Elite forces stormed in after the gas had been pumped in and shot the suicide bombers and hostage takers at point blank range - the huge death toll was becasue they failed to get the hostages out of the gas filled theater and in many cases they sufforcated and died outside because of the lack of medical attention etc. Truely horrific.

[qutoe]However I do have to ask the question. Russia is fairly aggressive in dealing with Chechen terror as it is...and it isn't diminishing the terror. Israel is aggressive with Palestinians, yet it isn't diminishing terror. The US has been fairly aggressive with terrorists in Afghanistan and more so Iraq, and terrorism has increased. Maybe the aggressive approach isn't working.
Can' tell you how happy i was to see someone write that here bondo :D I think it just about sums up events, Israel and Palestine, and the core reason why George bush is one of the greatest Threats to world peace around. These tatics do not work, they simply strenghten the beliefs of the people who carry out these atrocities.

To blame the chechens for this is not fair, this was a group of extreamists, mostly forign it appears, of the 20 killed apparently 9 were of arab decent and 1 of african decent.

We all hate terrorism, but when one man steps up to fight terrorism....he is smashed down by the public and media. You guys know who im talking about, you know you bash him all the time, and maybe now you want to hunt down terrorism too.

I have to agree with Rebel on this one.  Some people in this thread are the same ones who jumped on us for reactionary force to other acts.  This is quite humorous.

I say mount up Russia and get ready to defend and respond.  Nobody should tolerate terrorism, and nobody should tolerate the killing of defenseless children.

Just plain sad.

There is more than one way to battle terrorism or hunt it down as you say, the right way and the wrong way. Bush has choosen the wrong way and as a result is making the problem worse. I suggested a better way that in no way involves appeasement or tolerating terror...it just demands precision.

By satanists I meant the people who took the school, not the Chechen people. Nowadays the Chechens are more so on the side of Russians. The rebels come from the Arab world and some diseffected gangs of Chechens. You'll notice this was not purely Chechen either. We had ethnic Russians, Ossetians, and an Ingush among the satanists.

apparently, Russians special forces planed an assault and thats what they did (its in french newspaper Le Monde, today's edition). The russian gouvernment strongly denies he had any of this plans. The children "trying to escape" is bogus...
 

Well u can't mean bush. Only thing he has successfully "stood up against" is any attempts to curb the speed which the world is being poluted.
Has the israelis and their "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" approach worked? No. Is Afganistan a safe and "terrorist" free nation? No. Is Iraq a safe and "terrorist free" country? No. Has bush done anything that has made the world a safer place? No.

Bondo sums it up perfectly, There is more than one way to battle terrorism, the right way and the wrong way. Bush and co are doing nothing more than making the problem worse. Its not about tollerating terrorism. Extreamism only breeds more extreamism. Nobodies saying Russia should be lying down and letting terrorist attacks go unnoticed - but they are making the problem themselves by the treatment of the Chechens, by oppressing them and treating them so badly they are only creating somthing for people to gather up against and fight against - and a way of islamic fundamentalists to find a foot hold...

U don't fight fire with more fire, or the result will be even bigger hotter flames. Instead you pour water on the base of the flames.  

Sure Bush has done it wrong in ways, but Kerry himself has said he plans to remove troops from the mid east....which means that you guys are against terrorism but voting for a man who is going to crawl away from it and let it thrive....strange.

First of all, how the fuck do you know that the agressive approach isn't diminishing terror?  Do any of us really know that?  

Israeli agressivness with the Palistinians very well could be diminshing terror - they foil a large percentage of planned attacks by suicide bombers.  How do we know it is not the same for the Russians, or even Bush?

Doing nothing is going to make the situation MUCH worse.

i'm pretty sure killing innocents and childrens while fighting terrorism has a tremendous impact on the civilian population. One of the effect being that people start thinking that if they get killed by both sides, there isnt much of a difference between those 2 sides.

So your suggesting the agressive approach is diminishing terrorism? Ahh, perhaps you can explain to me why soldiers and civilians are being killed in iraq every day by islamic insurgents and iraqi resistance to the Invasion by US and British troops?
So the Russian persecution of Chechens has helped prevent Terrorist attacks? Did you notice the school siege?
Some argue the iligal wall dividing Israel and Palestine (well israel and some of illigally occupied palestine) is stopping terrorist attacks. Yes people say that it has reduced the number of sucessfull attacks, has it removed the problem though? NO, its simply trying to hide from the issues and at the same time making them far far far worse.

Ok i know that some people have a very simplistic idea of politics etc but isn't that going a bit to far? Who said anything about doing nothing? There aren't to options 1. dont do anything 2. invade with guns blazing or equvilent. thats just stupid - thats what the bush administration wants you to believe, that he did the only thing possible, the fact that they havn't got enough brain cells to consider the alternatives is just a great shame

Well from what I have read and seen.. The russian did go in with guns blazing on there own... THe russians were in the middle of a seasfire that they had negosiated with the terrorist so that the russians could pick up the dead and wounded around the outside of the school. Then while the russians were getting the wounde.. the terrorist opened fire or set off a bomb.. and the russians reacted to that so though they terrorist were attacking them.

I think Russia should respond to these acts of terror by attacking Sudan.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, only saying that agressive action was, in my opinion, the right path to take after the 9/11 attacks.  Our government, in this case, took action against a group of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.
What I am saying is that perhaps thee different terrorist attacks had already been prevented by the Russian government.  For all we know, there could have been additional attacks if no action were taken against Chechen rebels in the past.

Gabe, there was more terrorism in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001. Terrorism is increasing. Additionally, none of the three specific areas I highlighted have calmed down which is what you would expect if progress was happening.

Rebel, ignoring the bullshit opinion of yours that Kerry will somehow just pull away all forces and cower inside the US, I know Bush is going about things the wrong way so even if Kerry's isn't the perfect approach, it is better than Bush's. I wish there was a third party I could vote for that had a chance that would do the exact right thing.

Then again, I don't vote on this issue alone, there are other issues this election. For one, I could not live with myself if I voted for a party that plans to discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality. That would be like voting for a party that gives a blind eye to slavery. The Republican Party is so far off on so many issues (they are the fourth closest match to me of the two major and top two minor parties...fifth if you include Nader as Reform Party.) But Bush loves people to think that the "war" on terror is the only issue that matters because for whatever reason, a lot of Americans seem to think he is strong on that point.

lol

Well if they listen to the US and then look at US and british 'intellegence'..... heaven forbid

You people should look at the Georgian situation. We could attack them on account of Georgian President Shakashvili attacking foreign tourist boats inbound to Sochi with his "navy". The whole Caucuses is a hotbed waiting to flare up.

Chechen Separatists Say ?Third Force? Behind Terrorist Attacks

MosNews | September 4 2004

Akhmed Zakayev, a special envoy to Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov has said that ?a third force that brought Russian President Vladimir Putin to power? is behind all the terrorist attacks committed in Russia over the past two weeks. London-based Zakayev said this in an exclusive interview with the Caucasus Times newspaper, printed in Prague, Czech Republic.

Zakayev said that ?Chechen resistance forces led by Ichkeria President Aslan Maskhadov have nothing to do with the hostage crisis in North Ossetia?. He called the events a sad fact and condemned actions against Russian children and civilians.

Zakayev believes that the twin aircraft crash last week, the blast near Rizhskaya metro station on 31 August and today?s events in North Ossetia are links in the same chain and that ?the same power that wants to destabilize the situation in the North Caucasus region? is behind them.

A militant Muslim group called the Islambouli Brigades earlier claimed responsibility for downing two passenger plains and for the bomb blast in Moscow. The legitimacy of the group and the authenticity of such statements have not been verified.

<enter conspiracy theory here>

From the Guardian, a British Broadsheet taken today, some very interesting words:

Muslim leaders condemn killers:

Islamic leaders in the middle east yesterday denounced the slaughter of children in russia as 'unislmaic', as commentators asked unususally soulsearching questions about hte region and terrorism.
Even the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypts biggest islamic group, condemned the bloody siege in Beslan. Its leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that kidnappings mayb e justified but killings are not. He added: 'What happened is not jihad becuae Islam obligates us to respect the souls of human beings; it is not about taking them away.'
While some Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East have long suported fellow muslims fighting in Chechnya, such was the barbarity of the hostage takers that few voices spoke in support of the actions in Ossetia. Egypt's leading Muslim cleric, Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, was quoted as saying during a friday sermon: "what is the guilt of those children? why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government? You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kiddnappings are criminals, not Muslims".
Ali Abdullah, and Islamic scholar in Behrain who follows the ultra-conservative Salafi stream of Islam, also condemned the shcool attack as 'unIslamic'. However he insisted Muslims were not involved and revived an old conspiracy theory: 'I have no doubt that this is the workd of the Israelis, who want to tarnish the image of the muslims'.
But the reaction was overwhelmingly fulled with revulsion. Abdulrahman al-Rashed wrote an article in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat news paper under the headline: "The painful truth: all world terrorists are Muslims!"
Al-Rashed said that mulims will not be able to cleanse their image unless "we admit thae scandalous facts.... Our terrorist sons are and end-product of our corrupted culture. THe picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us."
His extraordinary critique was echoed by an egyption islamist. Writing in the pro-government newspaper, Al ahram, he said hostage takers in russia and Iraq are only harming islam. "If all the enemies of islam united and decided to harm it... they wouldn't have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations and misuderstandings.

So this is suggesting that Putin essentially was behind the whole thing in order to cause fear to the country and rally support behind him in battling terrorism in Chechnia? Basically what the Bush Administration does with terror alerts but with real action and a body count? Personally, as problematic as Putin may be, I could not imagine any leader of a free nation, not even Bush, stooping to something as horrible.

I could.

You trying to say we are a free nation? Heheheheheh, most entertaining. The point is this, who is this third force? Heaven forbid a known enemy of Putin (Maskhadov) would tell such a blatant lie. I would look into his claim more if he provided more details, but he just cites a "third force." Putin does not need to stage such an attack to boost his approval, he already controls the media and has an eighty percent approval rating based off the March elections.

Well, allegedly Russia is a democracy so I say it is free. Whether that is actually accurate is not for me to determine. You would obviously know better than I Cossack.

I mean at some point it is difficult to draw a line on what is free and what isn't. Complete freedom is either anarchy or libertarianism...the US isn't either. It is murkier at the other end. Is democracy the key factor...is free media? (actually, the US media is questionably free if you really look at it, which isn't to say speech)

But I digress...

Ok...first off, if you actually believe that this massacre was somehow the result of some conspiracy, you should go see a doctor. Having your head that far up your ass can't be good for your health. This was the worst-case scenario for russia's security forces and for the kremlin, as it makes them look ineffective in fighting the terrorists. There is nothing good or convenient about this for Putin. On the contrary, he will probably be forced to change his strategy and start negotiating with some of the less radical chechens. But then again, no 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon and the CIA and Mossad are probably responsible for 9/11.....don't believe the hype.
The aggressive approach against terrorism that Israel has taken has actually decreased the number of terrorist attacks there considerably. Assasinating Hamas leaders, incursions into gaza and west bank towns and the security barrier seem to be paying off. THe suicide attack last week happened in beersheba, which is in the southern part of israel, where the security barrier consists more of barbed wire, motion sensors and patrols, so it seems to indicate that "the wall" that everyone likes to bitch about is actually pretty effective.
As for terror aimed at the US, do you people think there would have been LESS terrorsim if the US hadent bombed the taliban and gone after alquaida's HQ in afghanistan? Maybe if we had negotiated with the terrorists like bondo suggests, they would have simply packed up and gone back to the shitholes they crawled out from? Better PR might have been a good thing, i agree, but the only way to deal with terrorsim is to capture and kill terrorists.

     Speaking of having your head up your ass... Abe, by all means, give us a quote where Bondo advocated negotiating with terrorists. If I remember aright, he advocated killing the shit out of them, but doing so in a manner which did not piss off their neighbors and countrymen and thus avoided breeding more hatred and terrorists.

      I believe the phrase "more bang for the buck" applies here.

... Lets compare it to Arson then. Is it better to spend all your efforts capturing and locking up arsonists, or more sensible to spend some of your efforst in the education of likely arsonists so that they see as it were the error of their ways and that setting fires isn't going to solve anything - while at the same time stopping those who attempt to set buildings on fire?

What im getting at is that the bush / israeli / russia against the chechen  appoach is fighting the result of the problem, its the surface - the visible problem. It isn't infact as simple as that, by trying to deal with the surface problem (the actual visible attacks etc) they are in effect putting fuel on the root of the problem - the reasons why people turn to terrorist attacks - the reason why in some cases they feel they have no alternative than to fight, with everything they can even if it means blowing their bodies up.

like i said before, when a firefighter tackles a problem, yes he wants to dowse the flames back a bit, but only so he can get to the source of the fire, to get to the fuel which is creating the flames  

Hehe, thanks for reading my posts Loth, since those who criticize me don't seem to be ;)

I mean, I think it is to my benefit that I don't just condemn the conspiracy talks when they come up, but I do disbelieve them and ask questions of them. It is equally bad I think to either jump to believe a conspiracy or jump to deny it without questioning it. And usually when you question it, you won't believe it. So I don't believe that Pentagon conspiracy in the other thread or the Putin involvement in this thread. I think I was fairly clear on both points even if I wasn't forceful.

But yes, like I've said, I think the answer is focused special force attacks to terrorist groups based on proper human intelligence (which we need to reinvigorate since it has lapsed thanks to both Republicans and Democrats.) I'm not even sure if the US needs a proper invasion army anymore these days, seems we just need a bunch of small special forces groups and then more of a peace keeping rather than war fighting troop core.

I have to disagree Bondo. I do not mean to pull my college expereince yadda yadda yadda, but I have been looking at the Caucuses and China with special interest as an IR major. The US does need an invasion style Army because with the rise of China an almost imminent, there will be a war with them or something of that sort. Am I saying there will be a war with China now? No. However, the current trends point China towards superpower status. Usually the rise of superpowers happen through wars (US and USSR via WWII, Rome via Punic Wars, Napoleon via Napoleonic Wars).

With this great potential threat across the Pacific, it is imparitive that the United States keep some sort of invasion Army, because terrorism could just be a small little stop on our way to a much larger worldwide conflict. It is very short sighted to advocate the dissolution of any Army. Special Forces are skilled, but you cannot fight front line wars with Special Forces.

As for Putin and terrorists, you people are missing the whole point. You people are advocating two extreames that will not be successful. It is either negotiate with them or kill the living shit out of them. Killing the shit out of them only compounds the problem by breeding more terrorists. Negotiating with them is a good long term solution, but what are you going to do about the angry terrorists that already exist. You need both of them to act in sync. The Israeli solution is short term. Eventually the Palestinians will tear down that wall. True, it thwarts some terrorists. but it divides the Palestinians from their town and markets in Jeruselem. I will not even compare Iraq and Chechnya seeing as how they are two way different situations (although I assume some of you will fail to see that). In short there is and there never will be a black and white solution to the world's problems.

I do feel your assumption that if China and US are both superpowers they must be enemies and fight a war is overreactive to the situation. Though perhaps the US would be the offending party in that conflict? Is there reason to think China has intentions on hostility beyond Taiwan?

I do understand that these situations are vastly different, but the method is the same and it is to the method that I speak. I do think with the army/peacekeeping aspect there is a level of dual training that can be used. I just think the emphasis should shift from invasion to peacekeeping, not that either should be exclusively focused on. If I were actually in charge of things I would by no means favor a hard and fast agendum (plus I'd listen to expert advisors in the area) what I mention here is more about general philosophies that perhaps can be adopted in how we'd prefer to deal with things, making adjustments from that base when handling a situation rather than the base philosophy the Bush Administration works from.

And do speak from your college experience...I am no expert and your voice will help me understand better. Just as I might speak to global warming issues or energy policy based on my college experience.

So I take it your're voting for Bush Abe?

I never said who was going to be an aggressor. Unfortunately, I am not Nostradamus. However, if you do look at historical trends you will see that empires usually fight eachother. Conflicts of interest are bound to occur, and radical elements on both sides seem to take hold. This happened with Greece and Persia, Rome and Parthia, Napoleon and Russia, Great Britain, and Prussia, and the US, USSR and the Axis. Wars happen for one reason or another, it is human nature.

Although with the recent 9/11 tragedy and the Iraq quagmire, we live in a relativley peaceful but volatile era. There are no titanic battles or mass exoduses of people. The era that we live in is comperable to the post-Versailles twenties. Economic stagnation was abound and the Central Powers were split into quabbling factions. Many people still thought war had ended after the Great War. The victorious allied powers failed to see the volitility of the times and thus their militaries were neglected and easily destroyed when the German Blitz hit Europe.

Is it overreactive? Maybe, but when one looks at some of these historical trends you tend to take the cautious and less optimistic view.

Makes me think of Fahrenheit 451. There is one line where it talks about how things keep repeating...but each time a few more people learn and eventually we might have enough to avoid repeating it. I'm hopeful that eventually humans will have evolved to a point that sort of thing could be avoided. The technology of communications seems more important than the technology of being able to destroy the whole world in turning the tide toward peace. And frankly, the more we can have a diplomatic venue, like the UN, that also increases the chances of peace.

I suppose that is why the neo-conservative strategy of shunning the UN is dangerous and regressive IMO. The neo-con type mindset overestimated the Soviet threat, is overestimating the Islamic threat (fear suits their purposes, but not the purposes of peace) and in some ways looks to be building up well in advance for the Chinese threat.

You are hitting onto something about optimism vs. pragmatism though, I'm nothing if not a bit idealistic.

It is good to be idealistic, or else nothing great will happen.

Yup, right after I deep-fry my balls and eat them in an ice cream cone. HELL NO. I'm opposed to Bush more because of his domestic politics ("I'm a uniter not a divider", the whole bit about spending tomorrow's tax money today and the schizophrenia when it comes to free trade) than over foreign policy issues, which won't be handled much differently under Kerry.
By the way, sorry for misquoting you Bondo....my bad.

You are forgiven  :)

You have a very refreshing attitude that must be very scary indeed to Mr. Rove. He expects so many Americans to buy his argument that the war on terrorism is the only thing that matters in this election and that Bush is completely different than Kerry there for the better. And sadly many Americans seem to buy this argument and ignore his other policies.

I really hope Kerry gets his act together and bitchslaps Bush on other issues and hopefully can shine the light on other issues rather than playing into Bush's hands by just battling the leadership in war aspect.

i'm getting more and more a bad feeling about november's election. I'm still wondering where does Bush get this kind of popularity, Iraq's a catastrophe, the US has a record 422 billion deficit, economy and jobs are still weak, and the guy has a 10 points advance in polls !
The only turning point would be during the debate between Kerry and Bush. Any idea when that's supposed to happen ?

Apparently the debates are going to be bunched at the end of this month and beginning of October. Unfortunately, the Republican strategy of trying to show fear by wanting as few debates as possible in order to make people buy into the falsehood that Bush is a bad debater, while meanwhile praising his opponent in order to establish impossible expectations of Bush getting his ass handed to him, have already begun. So we'll go in, people will expect Kerry to throttle Bush, and when it doesn't happen as bad as they expect they'll announce Bush the winner of the debate...all because they bought pre-debate hype.

As for why Bush has such support...all I can say is that Republicans have a habit of prefering lies to truth. Poll on Iraq Details (http://gadflyer.com/pollminer/?PollMinerID=5)

that is unbelievable, yet kinda scaring too.

Scares me shitless reading that, that there are that many americans who are, well basically totall brainwashed,


I wonder what this reflects about the American Media - or to be precise it says a lot about the state and quality of your news networks!

I find it increadable how totally clueless these guys are - this was shocking:

For those planning on voting for bush... please for the love of god open your eyes, rather than accepting the dribbling bullshit that is fed to you by the whitehouse!!

There was another version of that poll, featured in the documentary "Outfoxed" that asked those same questions but broke it down by people who get news from Fox compared to people who get their news from PBS/NPR. It was even more dramatic. Fox News watchers believed the untruth 10-20 times as much as those who used public supported TV/Radio.

The liberal media bias claim really is one of the most dangerous falsehoods in the country right now. The result is that journalists are scared of doing investigative journalism if it will expose something bad about the right because they feel it will draw them accusations of bias. Now giving each side equal time regardless of accuracy is more important than giving the truth the most time.

Fox actually won a appeal in Florida last year because the Appeal Court found that there is no law agaist lying or falsifying news reports. Project Censored: Media Lying (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html)

that or heaven forbid.... Unpatriotic!  :o :o


I find that thing regarding Fox news unbelivable - over here if someone is found out to have not told the entire truth in the media all hell brakes loose - Hell when the BBC got involved in a row over a report by a BBC Journelist Andrew Gilligan on BBC Radio 4 about Iraq and the hunt for weapons (much more complex but i won't go into it)  - well it esculated into goverment officials quitting, half of the board of the BBC going not to mention MPs and reports flying..

then again we do care to make sure we're hearing the truth... rather than just lapping up  what the goverment wants us to belive.......

i'm wondering if its either the White House doing a really good job, the American Media doing a really bad job. In either scenario, the american people are way too trusty on what they're fed with.

Well one of those options must be inpossible: with bush in power the only thing the white house is comady errors in speaches from bush like "more and more of our inports come from abroad", and, "nigeria is a very inportant continant", and " id like to welcome my wife and the other astraunauts", and so it goes on...

so either biased lying and corrupt american media, or a population filled with armies of stupid dribbling numpties...