Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

From: john

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:17:29 GMT, "Jack G"
wrote:

You forgot to mention the Baghdad Terrorist Times - sure to give you as
unbiased reporting as the other 3 mentioned.

Jack


"john" wrote in message


And why is it that reports from the troops in Iraq suggest that the
public is not seeing anything close to the whole picture of what is
taking place there?


Because reporting the whole picture of what is taking place there
would
would make it harder to oust Bush next November. US mainstream media
isn't
going to do anything like that.




So you want to know what is really going on?

Here's the full skinny--from the average Iraqi point of view.

There is 70% unemployment

There is a shortage of gasoline

There is a shortage of benzene to provide heat as winter approaches.

electricity is on infrequently both day and night.

fresh water is in short supply

crime is rampant--car jacking is on the rise

woman are afraid to go out at night

You had better not be around when anyone starts shooting at the
Americans--the Americans are shooting 360 degrees at anything.

I guess, other than that, everything is OK.

Electricity and water supplies were short before the war and getting worse
bcause the systems were not getting repaired with the food-for-oil money Saddam
was building palaces with.

Gasoline would be in better supply if the bad guys weren't disrupting the flow.

Want to continue?

Well, good old JACK.S:

How about pointing out the items which you know are incorrect?

You condemn the best newspapers in the country for being biased. So if
any of the newspapers made any of the above statements it would not be
true because they have a biased outlook. Is that correct?

You are one ignorant *******.

The papers in question have repeatedly pointed out the problems without
explaining things were either worse or just as bad when Saddam was running
things.

If you wish to debate like an adult stop with the name calling.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

Nice to see some one understands the meaning of "biased news coverage."
John thinks it means untruthful when it actually means one-sided.

Jack



"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: john

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:17:29 GMT, "Jack G"
wrote:

You forgot to mention the Baghdad Terrorist Times - sure to give you as
unbiased reporting as the other 3 mentioned.

Jack


"john" wrote in message


And why is it that reports from the troops in Iraq suggest that
the
public is not seeing anything close to the whole picture of what
is
taking place there?


Because reporting the whole picture of what is taking place there
would
would make it harder to oust Bush next November. US mainstream
media
isn't
going to do anything like that.




So you want to know what is really going on?

Here's the full skinny--from the average Iraqi point of view.

There is 70% unemployment

There is a shortage of gasoline

There is a shortage of benzene to provide heat as winter approaches.

electricity is on infrequently both day and night.

fresh water is in short supply

crime is rampant--car jacking is on the rise

woman are afraid to go out at night

You had better not be around when anyone starts shooting at the
Americans--the Americans are shooting 360 degrees at anything.

I guess, other than that, everything is OK.

Electricity and water supplies were short before the war and getting worse
bcause the systems were not getting repaired with the food-for-oil money
Saddam
was building palaces with.

Gasoline would be in better supply if the bad guys weren't disrupting the
flow.

Want to continue?

Well, good old JACK.S:

How about pointing out the items which you know are incorrect?

You condemn the best newspapers in the country for being biased. So if
any of the newspapers made any of the above statements it would not be
true because they have a biased outlook. Is that correct?

You are one ignorant *******.

The papers in question have repeatedly pointed out the problems without
explaining things were either worse or just as bad when Saddam was running
things.

If you wish to debate like an adult stop with the name calling.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(Less Ismore) wrote:
snip
We have formulated the following statement
of principles, which we
plan to circulate widely. The statement makes
clear that we are not
opposed to exhibiting the plane in a fair
and responsible manner,

And so long as you determine what is a 'fair
and responsible manner'.


but that we fear that such a celebratory exhibit
both legitimizes
what happened in 1945 and helps build support
for the Bush
administration's dangerous new nuclear policies.


So you want to re-write history in an effort
to critize a President
who was not yet born when they Enola Gay took
off and headed to
Hirsohima. And you honestly consider yourself
to be an "educator"?
Instead of a lacky for political correctness
and the political left.


Consider the following in a recent article by
economist and historian
Dr. Thomas Sowell:

"History is what happened, not what we wish
had happened or what a
theory says should have happened. One of the
reasons for the great
value of history is that it allows us to check
our current beliefs
against hard facts from around the world and
across the centuries."

"But history cannot be a reality check for today's
fashionable visions
when history is itself shaped by those visions.
When that happens, we
are sealing ourselves up in a closed world of
assumptions."


Also, that nonsence about W's nuclear policies
is exactly that. I
would expect that were the current President
not a Rebublican you
would ignore the Enola Gay exhibit. Even if
such a president had the
exact same nuclear policies as the current administration.


You people are worse than pathetic. Splash
some educational title
and degrees awarded in your email signature
and believe that you are
the only ones who can be allowed to direct and
critize public policy
and the popular culture. All this after never
having worked an
honest day in your life. Rather than continuing
the indoctrin-
ation of your students, why don't you instead
take the first honorable
action in your pathetic lives and retire. Leave
higher education to
those who still believe in the concept (assuming
that there are any).
I agree with the above: History happened, and you can't change it. Events
must be viewed in the context of the time-and to this day, many Americans
feel that the Bombs ended the war and saved American lives. I've got a BA
and MA in history and have no use at all for revisionists in any way, shape,
or form. Though the invasion would have succeeded, the price paid, even on
the low end, would have been dear. Mr. Truman had an option availiable to
him other than blockade/bombing and the invasion. He took the third option
and ended the war in a quick and brutal manner that forced the Japanese to
surrender in less than ten days from Hiroshima to Hirohito's speech.
Get over it, it happened, and that's that.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Glenn Jacobs wrote:

Actually Nanking wasn't much different from the rest of Japanese occupied
China, Korea and other areas. Recall that the Japanese used Chinese
Prisoners of War for bayonet practice for their troops. Japanese troops
were required to kill prisoners of war to get them ready for killing on the
battlefront. Japanese Army Officers were required to behead Chinese
Prisoners of War to toughen them up.

Until the 1970's when it was finally discontinued, the South Koreans
had a postage stamp dipicting a Japanese soldier tossing an Korean
infant up in the air and ctaching it on his bayonnet.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Apologies for the length of this one; I've left a lot in for context.
(And removed rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.food.cooking and
rec.travel.air to avoid excessive off-topicness.)

In article ,
john wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:22:48 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
john wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:07:03 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
john wrote:

Maybe you could share with us the name of the newspapers you believe
might also answer the questions you raised in an article about Iraqi
unemployment.

You might also share with us the names of the TV news outlets you
follow for reliable news coverage. It might be telling.

It may be more telling that you can't seem to conceive of getting you
news other than predigested (and from a very narrow range of sources,
judging from previous comments).

Ever thought of going to primary sources?

Please share with us your "primary sources".

The same sources that various news agencies resort to; FBI, Department
of Justice stats, CDC, CIA open publications, etc. etc. etc.

The problem with the news sources that you brought up (the same as any
other secondary source) is that they have to pick and choose from the
huge mass of available data, and select what they're going to include in
their releases. The selection process is where the bias effects show up.

I doubt that the major news agencies have any conscious, organized
conspiracy in operation...but they certainly tend to see the world in
roughly the same way. They make assumptions before looking at the data,
and toss out whatever doesn't fit their world view right from the
beginning. If you're depending on them for your information, then you're
necessarily lacking information that might actually better describe
what's happening.

And, apparently, you don't even know that that is what is happening.

Could al-jazera TV be one of you primary sources?

No, Al Jazira is a secondary source. It's one that I look in on
periodically, along with BBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, Pacifica, Reuters,
Pravda, Moscow Times, Iraqi sources, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The Daily
Star (Lebanon), L.A. Times, etc etc etc. Those are all secondary sources.


Mr. Hix:

You are so full of ****.

Good start, John! And ad hominem is so much easier than a real argument,
isn't it?

There are probably hundreds of news items whose subject material you
don't have a primary source to research.

True enough. However, there are a *lot* of primary sources that are
easily accessible. There's no need to blow them off, is there?

Your list of secondary sources is also a joke.

Why, because you don't agree with their positions, or because you hadn't
thought to look around? The list above is not exhaustive, by any means,
just representative.

How many of these secondary sources do you consult BEFORE you believe
an article?

None or more. Depends on the article.
Do you believe an article when you find it has a bias towards your way
of thinking?

Not necessarily, no.

I read the columns of a lot of syndicated columnists. These columnists
cover the left wing and the right wing. I know that and know their
biases.

How nice for you. Still sounds more than a little sparse. But if that's
all you want, fine.

For you to state that the prestigious newspapers I mentioned are too
biased for you to believe anything you read in them does a great
disservice to the excellent reporters who work for these newspapers.

As it happens, john, that is not what I said. Re-read the context above.
Or have someone read it to you, slowly if necessary.

I didn't say that I didn't beleive anything that they publish.

I said that the list you provided was insufficient to get a broad and
correct view of current events.

They (necessarily, given time and space limitations) must pick and
choose what they publish. Fine, so does any other news source.

The problem is that they, without really thinking about it, throw out a
lot of potential content. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not merely a
cliche, it really describes what happens.

An example:

Around December 10, there was an anti-terrorist demonstration put on by
residents of Baghdad. All sorts of political groups, from Communists on
the left all the way as far right as Iraqi politics goes these days;
tribal groups, university and high school students, labor unions, etc.
were represented. Somewhere between 3,000 to 10,000 people marched.

Peacefully. There was no violence by marchers, no violence against
marchers.

The demonstration was witnessed by major news organizations; reporters
and photographers were there.

The western news organizations blew it off. They did not report it, in
most cases, at all. In a couple of cases, it was reported on nearly a
week later. (During the same period, they gave frontpage notice of a
much smaller anti-Coalition demonstration; about 500 strong.)

Why one and not the other?

It's not like it should have been a surprise, since there had been
discussion about the planned demonstration on the web from various
Iraqis.

Here's one of them:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...ngiraq_archive.
html#107107940577248802

You would never have known that it was planned, nor that it happened, by
relying on your favored news sources.

If they missed something as obvious as this, what else are they missing?

If they're focusing on bad news in Iraq, which they clearly are, and
mostly ignoring any good news, which other sources do cover, how do you
expect to know what's really going on there?

How can you assume you know what's happening elsewhere in the world?

It's not possible to know everything about everything, nobody could
realistically claim otherwise; but it is certainly possible to know much
more about things you might consider important than what you get from
the usual suspects.

But if that's what floats your boat, kewl.

Just don't be surprised if someone disagrees with you...and has
information to back up their argument that you've never seen.

Expect it to happen more an more as time passes.