Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
IYou're description below was as an either-or sort of thing: either its a symbol of freedom (as was reported by breathless dolts) or it was staged by some mastermind with a baboon heart. I don't see it as an either or.
|
I know you don't see it as either, but the funny thing is that it was both. It was, in fact:
a) a transparent staged event masterminded by a guy with a baboon heart (ok, maybe the army colonel that masterminded the event didn't have a baboon heart, but the point is the same);
and
b)
reported ad nauseum by breathless dolts as a monumental event in human history.
It's not either-or, it's both...this is the objective reality....that's what makes it interesting and illustative! Were it not so transparent, it would be understandable that more than a few talking heads in the US news played it up as monumentus. Had the news media presented it is an army psy-ops stage managed event, I could more easily dismiss it as trivia.
But it was
both transparent
and treated as an awe-inspiring event -- it was very Pravda-esque, in other words, and all that this implies.
(and most certainly, there isn't a middle ground between either-or...it wasn't
sort of an army psy-op and it wasn't kind of reported faithfully by some of the media in the US and sceptically by others)
Quote:
|
If they didn't ever apply the word "war" (ie, if they didn't want us to start thinking of it as a war), then I'd have a big problem with them.
|
Which is exactly what happened....
--the war started--then....
--the debate started--then and only then...
--we started calling the war a war because it's inappropriate to say that the US is at war before congress has discussed the matter.
Calling the war a war before we had any sort of a national debate (or the pretense thereof) would lead to all sorts of wrong thoughts about the lawless way our government really behaves (and the chief of the aim of propaganda is to prevent people from thinking the wrong thoughts).
^^^this is what happened. You can call it a crackpot conspiracy theory, but it's nonetheless what really happened.
This is a tough subject to cover...it's kind of like me dropping in from nowwhere and saying that
the CPS used false pretenses, routinely acted in bad faith, violated the law and just generally behaved like asses when they grabbed children from monagamous parents, children which they knew to be healthy, well cared for and thoroughly unabused.
Of course that's ^^^ a crazy thing to say because we all know that the CPS protects kids and that fundy mormons diddle lot's of young girl. The problem I have is my lying eyes tell me it's true.