Standing Up to a Bully
Omar R Quraishi January 9, 2003
#39 Posted by Ras on January 10, 2003 9:44:56 pm
There will be a huge rally in San Francisco on September 18 on this topic. I wonder how many CHOWK readers will make it there?
Say NO to war....
> NATIONAL MARCHES
> ON WASHINGTON &
> SAN FRANCISCO
>
> SF: ASSEMBLE 11AM MARKET & EMBARCADERO, MARCH TO CIVIC
> CENTER
>
Say NO to war....
> NATIONAL MARCHES
> ON WASHINGTON &
> SAN FRANCISCO
>
> SF: ASSEMBLE 11AM MARKET & EMBARCADERO, MARCH TO CIVIC
> CENTER
>
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#38 Posted by Romair on January 10, 2003 9:44:56 pm
Gore Vidal rocks!!
One of my favorite authors. His arguments have to be listened to by the mainstream US media, because he is too highly respected as an author.
There are certain things about 9/11 that definitely do not add up (I have to read Vidals` latest book on it, however):
1) For example, it is generally claimed that the terrorist pilots trained in the USA on Cessnas and flew a Boeing simulator for a few hours here, in which they never practiced how to land. They then hijacked the planes and flew them across the East Coast.
The first time I heard this, I contacted an airline pilot friend of mine. I have quite a bit of knowledge of airline flying also. Both of us agreed that there is absolutely no way anyone can fly a large Boeing after having trained on a Cessna and just flying a simulator for a few hours. It is impossible to do so even in normal conditions, much less in stressful conditions.
Secondly, navigation in airliners is done completely through instruments. While navigation in Cessnas is done through visual flying and maybe a few instruments like Beacons and GPS etc. When a person gets close to a destination, he recieves a lot of coordination from the ground controllers also.
So a person cannot just take a Boeing from Boston and reach all the way to New York without flying experience and experience on the navigation instruments on a Boeing (it can be done, but not likely). But lets say he is able to do that because he knows how to use a GPS or beacons etc. Or he knew how to feed in the correct co-ordinates into the computerized navigational systems and the auto-pilot flew it to New York.
However, it is still impossible, I repeat impossible, to then reach a destination within the city like the WTC, which does not have beacons, and requires visual navigation, flying at exactly the correct altitudes without a lot of airline flying experience.
Thirdly, if you look at the way the second aircraft turned into the second WTC building, it was not the work of a novice pilot. It was a perfectly executed turn, right on target, which indicates a skilled pilot. Such coordinated turns cannot be learnt in a simulator in a day.
But the final inconsistency is the most interesting: The plane that hit the Pentagon had to be flown by an experienced pilot. Infact a very experienced pilot. Flying an airliner and hitting a runway without sophisticated ILS (Instrument Landing Systems) is extremely difficult for even experienced pilots. If a 777 or 757 wants to land at Lahore airport, it starts its preparation thousands of feet above and tens of miles outside Lahore. Then it follows a well set procedure with well-defined ground features which it has to be at at certain altitudes. All of this is with the help of a ground controller and sophisticated instruments. The final landing pattern is carried out completely with instruments and ILS. The pilot doesn`t even control the aircraft manually till it is on the final landing slope. Everything is done automatically with computers.
Only a very experienced pilot could have targeted an airliner perfectly at the Pentagon, with no landing instruments, no help from a ground controller, and with no well-defined entry points on the ground and with no prior experience of flying into the Pentagon. Not to mention under so much stress.
From what I have heard, that plane actually flared and flew parallel to the ground before directly hitting the Pentagon. Flaring an airliner for landing takes a lot of practice. Its like learnign to ride a bike, i.e. you have to do it again and again and again, before you pick it up.
But flaring and then flying parallel to the ground, at such a low altitude, for a long distance, and then hitting a building (which from the altitude that the pilot started his landing descent, probably looking like a grain of sand) is an extremely difficult maneouvre. It requires an awful lot of flying skills. There is no way I could do it in an airliner, even though I have quite a bit more flying experience on small planes than the terrorists.
There is thus one thing that I can say with a great deal of certainity: the information on the flying experience of the terrorists is incorrect. Either there was some different person(s) flying the planes. Or those terrorists had received far more flying training than the experience on small planes they are said to have received in Florida. Some information is definitely being hidden in this area.
One of my favorite authors. His arguments have to be listened to by the mainstream US media, because he is too highly respected as an author.
There are certain things about 9/11 that definitely do not add up (I have to read Vidals` latest book on it, however):
1) For example, it is generally claimed that the terrorist pilots trained in the USA on Cessnas and flew a Boeing simulator for a few hours here, in which they never practiced how to land. They then hijacked the planes and flew them across the East Coast.
The first time I heard this, I contacted an airline pilot friend of mine. I have quite a bit of knowledge of airline flying also. Both of us agreed that there is absolutely no way anyone can fly a large Boeing after having trained on a Cessna and just flying a simulator for a few hours. It is impossible to do so even in normal conditions, much less in stressful conditions.
Secondly, navigation in airliners is done completely through instruments. While navigation in Cessnas is done through visual flying and maybe a few instruments like Beacons and GPS etc. When a person gets close to a destination, he recieves a lot of coordination from the ground controllers also.
So a person cannot just take a Boeing from Boston and reach all the way to New York without flying experience and experience on the navigation instruments on a Boeing (it can be done, but not likely). But lets say he is able to do that because he knows how to use a GPS or beacons etc. Or he knew how to feed in the correct co-ordinates into the computerized navigational systems and the auto-pilot flew it to New York.
However, it is still impossible, I repeat impossible, to then reach a destination within the city like the WTC, which does not have beacons, and requires visual navigation, flying at exactly the correct altitudes without a lot of airline flying experience.
Thirdly, if you look at the way the second aircraft turned into the second WTC building, it was not the work of a novice pilot. It was a perfectly executed turn, right on target, which indicates a skilled pilot. Such coordinated turns cannot be learnt in a simulator in a day.
But the final inconsistency is the most interesting: The plane that hit the Pentagon had to be flown by an experienced pilot. Infact a very experienced pilot. Flying an airliner and hitting a runway without sophisticated ILS (Instrument Landing Systems) is extremely difficult for even experienced pilots. If a 777 or 757 wants to land at Lahore airport, it starts its preparation thousands of feet above and tens of miles outside Lahore. Then it follows a well set procedure with well-defined ground features which it has to be at at certain altitudes. All of this is with the help of a ground controller and sophisticated instruments. The final landing pattern is carried out completely with instruments and ILS. The pilot doesn`t even control the aircraft manually till it is on the final landing slope. Everything is done automatically with computers.
Only a very experienced pilot could have targeted an airliner perfectly at the Pentagon, with no landing instruments, no help from a ground controller, and with no well-defined entry points on the ground and with no prior experience of flying into the Pentagon. Not to mention under so much stress.
From what I have heard, that plane actually flared and flew parallel to the ground before directly hitting the Pentagon. Flaring an airliner for landing takes a lot of practice. Its like learnign to ride a bike, i.e. you have to do it again and again and again, before you pick it up.
But flaring and then flying parallel to the ground, at such a low altitude, for a long distance, and then hitting a building (which from the altitude that the pilot started his landing descent, probably looking like a grain of sand) is an extremely difficult maneouvre. It requires an awful lot of flying skills. There is no way I could do it in an airliner, even though I have quite a bit more flying experience on small planes than the terrorists.
There is thus one thing that I can say with a great deal of certainity: the information on the flying experience of the terrorists is incorrect. Either there was some different person(s) flying the planes. Or those terrorists had received far more flying training than the experience on small planes they are said to have received in Florida. Some information is definitely being hidden in this area.
#37 Posted by bbabu on January 10, 2003 9:44:55 pm
bat # 27
The foreign policy of USA is driven by its own interests. USA had no or poor choices in Afghanistan, North Korea and Iraq. Israel is a whole different story. I disagree with the statement Saddam and Osama are proteges of USA.
Saddam was an independent operator to a Soviet client much like India. USA had Iraq as a terrorist state until 1983 because they never trusted Saddam. They were forced by fear of an Iranian victory to support Iraq. Keep in mind Britain, France, Germany, Soviet Union, Egypt, all the Gulf Arab states supported Saddam against Iran. It is not like USA was supporting Saddam all by themselves. Pakistan could have given Iran a nuke or two to beat Saddam. Even Gen Zia knew better.
The decision to back islamic radicals in Afghanistan was Gen Zia`s decision not the CIA. Pakistan decided for their own reasons to back islamic radicals over secular and nationalist elements in Afghanistan. CIA went along because they had no other choice. There is no proof that Osama ever worked for the CIA. USA was content to ignore Afghanistan once Soviets pulled out. USA was willing to put up idiots like the Taleban as long as they kicked out Osama. If there are any fault in American policies it is not getting tough with Saudi royals.
#36 Posted by nasah on January 10, 2003 7:38:53 pm
Great piece OQ -- what that demented Texas cowboy is up to is not going unnoticed around the world.
On eve of US war against Iraq: the political challenge of 2003
By the Editorial Board
6 January 2003
The claims that the Bush administration has not yet decided on war are as false as they are cynical.
The White House has already signed off on a military attack, as is patently clear from the massive deployment of American forces in the Persian Gulf. Tens of thousands of troops are being moved into the region, accompanied by a naval armada bristling with the most advanced and deadly weapons and buttressed by hundreds of war planes. Military operations are already well under way, in the form of special operations activities in the Kurdish enclave in the north of Iraq and escalating bombing attacks in the so-called “no-fly” zones.
There is nothing Baghdad could do, including the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to avert a US invasion. Bush’s talk of Iraqi violations of UN resolutions are transparent pretexts. Washington’s aim is not the “disarming” of Iraq or even the removal of Saddam Hussein, but rather the occupation of the country and the seizure of its oilfields.
Whatever the immediate military outcome of the war, the Bush administration is setting into motion processes that will have the most convulsive impact, affecting not only the Middle East, but every part of the globe.
The war will further inflame international public opinion, inevitably resulting in violent reprisals not only against US soldiers, but also against American civilians, both abroad and at home.
Within Iraq itself, the American onslaught will evoke deep and implacable opposition. The Iraqi masses will correctly look on US military forces as colonial-style occupiers and oppressors.
The same rationale that underlies the war against Iraq will inevitably lead to wars against Iran, Syria and other countries in the region.
The US drive to dominate the world’s oil supplies will lead to increasingly fierce conflicts with more powerful nations, including Russia, China and America’s great power rivals in Europe and Japan.
A US conquest of Iraq will initiate a process whose ultimate outcome will be a third world war.
The disastrous implications of Washington’s war agenda can already be seen from the results of the US invasion of Afghanistan. A year after the fall of the Taliban regime, American soldiers continue to come under attack from an outraged population.
The US intervention in Central Asia has further poisoned relations between India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Pakistani dictatorship to appease the US, tensions between Washington and Islamabad are growing, under conditions of intense popular anger and widening protests directed against both the US and the Musharaf regime. Already border clashes have occurred between American and Pakistani forces.””
The Bush administration’s warmongering has produced a sudden escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula. Washington’s inflammatory rhetoric and provocative actions have led Pyongyang to take countermeasures that raise the danger of nuclear war, while the South is convulsed by massive anti-American demonstrations.
The US government is preparing to unleash a wave of military violence around the world not seen since the 1930s and 1940s. The closest historical parallel to the foreign policy of the Bush administration, in its unabashed reliance on brute force and aggression, is that of the Nazis.
What were the hallmarks of the foreign policy of German imperialism under Hitler? An ever-expanding cycle of military aggression, targeting first those countries too weak to seriously resist the Wehrmacht. The occupation of countries, overthrow of governments and installation of puppet regimes.
The fabrication of crude pretexts to justify preemptive and unprovoked wars. Open contempt for international law and the flouting of traditional norms of diplomacy. In short—a policy of seizure and plunder.
On every count, there is no fundamental difference between the methods employed on the world stage by the fascist regimes of the 1930s and 1940s—whether it be Italy’s rape of Ethiopia or Germany’s conquest of Poland—and those of the Bush administration.
The world is witnessing a new eruption of imperialism in its most violent form.
The Bush administration is setting out to subjugate entire regions of the planet in order to satisfy the drive of the American ruling elite to monopolize vital resources, dominate world markets and harness new sources of super-exploited, cheap labor.
The real reasons for war
The escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula has one salutary political consequence: it thoroughly exposes the official pretexts employed to justify war against Iraq.
The US government claims the war is justified because Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction and defying UN resolutions. It has made the same claims against North Korea, but, in its public response, drawn sharply different conclusions.
Saddam Hussein is cooperating with UN inspections and is years away, even by US estimates, from building an atomic bomb. North Korea has kicked out UN inspectors and restarted the Yongbyong nuclear reactor complex, giving it access to enough plutonium to make a half dozen atomic bombs in six months.
But the US response has been to escalate its war preparations against Iraq, while downplaying the conflict with North Korea and urging dialogue, mediated through the United Nations.
Bush administration spokesmen have been unable to provide any rationale for what one critic has called its “schizophrenic” approach to the two countries.
That is because the real reasons for war with Iraq have nothing to do with the propaganda from the White House and State Department which is echoed uncritically in the American media.
The administration speaks for those within the American ruling elite who have seized on the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to establish a Pax Americana, in which US corporate interests, backed by troops and bombs, dominate the globe.
The key to this scheme for world hegemony is unchallenged rule over the Eurasian continent and control of its strategic resources, first and foremost, petroleum. On this basis American imperialism seeks to blackmail and bully the entire world.(wsws)
On eve of US war against Iraq: the political challenge of 2003
By the Editorial Board
6 January 2003
The claims that the Bush administration has not yet decided on war are as false as they are cynical.
The White House has already signed off on a military attack, as is patently clear from the massive deployment of American forces in the Persian Gulf. Tens of thousands of troops are being moved into the region, accompanied by a naval armada bristling with the most advanced and deadly weapons and buttressed by hundreds of war planes. Military operations are already well under way, in the form of special operations activities in the Kurdish enclave in the north of Iraq and escalating bombing attacks in the so-called “no-fly” zones.
There is nothing Baghdad could do, including the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to avert a US invasion. Bush’s talk of Iraqi violations of UN resolutions are transparent pretexts. Washington’s aim is not the “disarming” of Iraq or even the removal of Saddam Hussein, but rather the occupation of the country and the seizure of its oilfields.
Whatever the immediate military outcome of the war, the Bush administration is setting into motion processes that will have the most convulsive impact, affecting not only the Middle East, but every part of the globe.
The war will further inflame international public opinion, inevitably resulting in violent reprisals not only against US soldiers, but also against American civilians, both abroad and at home.
Within Iraq itself, the American onslaught will evoke deep and implacable opposition. The Iraqi masses will correctly look on US military forces as colonial-style occupiers and oppressors.
The same rationale that underlies the war against Iraq will inevitably lead to wars against Iran, Syria and other countries in the region.
The US drive to dominate the world’s oil supplies will lead to increasingly fierce conflicts with more powerful nations, including Russia, China and America’s great power rivals in Europe and Japan.
A US conquest of Iraq will initiate a process whose ultimate outcome will be a third world war.
The disastrous implications of Washington’s war agenda can already be seen from the results of the US invasion of Afghanistan. A year after the fall of the Taliban regime, American soldiers continue to come under attack from an outraged population.
The US intervention in Central Asia has further poisoned relations between India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Pakistani dictatorship to appease the US, tensions between Washington and Islamabad are growing, under conditions of intense popular anger and widening protests directed against both the US and the Musharaf regime. Already border clashes have occurred between American and Pakistani forces.””
The Bush administration’s warmongering has produced a sudden escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula. Washington’s inflammatory rhetoric and provocative actions have led Pyongyang to take countermeasures that raise the danger of nuclear war, while the South is convulsed by massive anti-American demonstrations.
The US government is preparing to unleash a wave of military violence around the world not seen since the 1930s and 1940s. The closest historical parallel to the foreign policy of the Bush administration, in its unabashed reliance on brute force and aggression, is that of the Nazis.
What were the hallmarks of the foreign policy of German imperialism under Hitler? An ever-expanding cycle of military aggression, targeting first those countries too weak to seriously resist the Wehrmacht. The occupation of countries, overthrow of governments and installation of puppet regimes.
The fabrication of crude pretexts to justify preemptive and unprovoked wars. Open contempt for international law and the flouting of traditional norms of diplomacy. In short—a policy of seizure and plunder.
On every count, there is no fundamental difference between the methods employed on the world stage by the fascist regimes of the 1930s and 1940s—whether it be Italy’s rape of Ethiopia or Germany’s conquest of Poland—and those of the Bush administration.
The world is witnessing a new eruption of imperialism in its most violent form.
The Bush administration is setting out to subjugate entire regions of the planet in order to satisfy the drive of the American ruling elite to monopolize vital resources, dominate world markets and harness new sources of super-exploited, cheap labor.
The real reasons for war
The escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula has one salutary political consequence: it thoroughly exposes the official pretexts employed to justify war against Iraq.
The US government claims the war is justified because Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction and defying UN resolutions. It has made the same claims against North Korea, but, in its public response, drawn sharply different conclusions.
Saddam Hussein is cooperating with UN inspections and is years away, even by US estimates, from building an atomic bomb. North Korea has kicked out UN inspectors and restarted the Yongbyong nuclear reactor complex, giving it access to enough plutonium to make a half dozen atomic bombs in six months.
But the US response has been to escalate its war preparations against Iraq, while downplaying the conflict with North Korea and urging dialogue, mediated through the United Nations.
Bush administration spokesmen have been unable to provide any rationale for what one critic has called its “schizophrenic” approach to the two countries.
That is because the real reasons for war with Iraq have nothing to do with the propaganda from the White House and State Department which is echoed uncritically in the American media.
The administration speaks for those within the American ruling elite who have seized on the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to establish a Pax Americana, in which US corporate interests, backed by troops and bombs, dominate the globe.
The key to this scheme for world hegemony is unchallenged rule over the Eurasian continent and control of its strategic resources, first and foremost, petroleum. On this basis American imperialism seeks to blackmail and bully the entire world.(wsws)
#34 Posted by faisaluno on January 10, 2003 4:51:31 pm
whats the population of hindustan? these guys cant even beat makranis wait until the pathans take to soccer.
Pak beat India in Saff football tourney
PTI[ FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 2003 08:19:25 PM ]
DHAKA: India`s quest for their third consecutive title received a major jolt as they went down to Pakistan by a solitary goal in their inaugural match of the Saff football tournament here on Friday.
Pakistan’s Sarfaraz Rasool struck the match winner early in the second session to seal the fate of the Indians who had themselves to blame for the debacle in a fast-paced and surcharged pool-A encounter at the Bangabandhu national stadium.
The Indians, determined to reaffirm their supremacy in the region, appeared to be in disarray as the spirited Pakistanis repeatedly broke through their defence with a series of attacks from both the flanks.
The all-important goal came in the 50th minute of the contest when the hard-working Sarfaraz Rasool capitalised on a Qadeer Ahmed`s cross from the right flank to beat the Indian custodian.
The win was Pakistan`s first against India since the 1-0 triumph in the 1995 Saff meet in Colombo.
Handicapped by the injury-induced absence of four key players, including star striker Baichung Bhutia, the defending champions were a pale shadow of themselves and were guilty of muffing a couple of gilt-edged opportunities that came their way.
Veteran striker I M Vijayan got an opportunity to fetch the equaliser in the 70th minute but he shot wide from inside the box with none of the defenders in position.
#33 Posted by ssdhillon on January 10, 2003 4:03:48 pm
Sac , arjun_m
++++++++++++++++++
What percentage of American public watches Fox or NBC or any other media outlet with any degree of regularity? What is the most popularly watched news program on any TV/cable channel? What does it mean in absolute numbers?
+++++++++++++++++++++
According to cable TV ratings....Bill O`reilly is the most watched news show(on cable). This is really disturbing to me. He is hardly an unbiased source of news.
Most major sources of news are pretty much unbiased. They may have a left or right tilt but overall they report facts. However Limbaugh and O `Reilly are major sources that are completely biased....Almost to the extent of twisting reality.
Sac
+++++++++++++
And you actually went and asked these 22% if they voted or not. Maybe one of your minions on the bench is working on this project right now.
++++++++++++
These right wingers(Limbaugh, O`Reilly) are definitely impacting voters. The whole country is leaning more and more right wing. Just look at the senate election results. You argument is extremely silly. If you have not noticed the impact of these virulent right wingers...you probably live in a very insular community.
++++++++++=
Have you actually ever ventured out of your familiar environs of Edison and Jersey city to have an idea how diverse America really is and how insular the life of an ordinary American is?
++++++++++++
Edison is hardly mainstream America.
++++++++++++++++++
What percentage of American public watches Fox or NBC or any other media outlet with any degree of regularity? What is the most popularly watched news program on any TV/cable channel? What does it mean in absolute numbers?
+++++++++++++++++++++
According to cable TV ratings....Bill O`reilly is the most watched news show(on cable). This is really disturbing to me. He is hardly an unbiased source of news.
Most major sources of news are pretty much unbiased. They may have a left or right tilt but overall they report facts. However Limbaugh and O `Reilly are major sources that are completely biased....Almost to the extent of twisting reality.
Sac
+++++++++++++
And you actually went and asked these 22% if they voted or not. Maybe one of your minions on the bench is working on this project right now.
++++++++++++
These right wingers(Limbaugh, O`Reilly) are definitely impacting voters. The whole country is leaning more and more right wing. Just look at the senate election results. You argument is extremely silly. If you have not noticed the impact of these virulent right wingers...you probably live in a very insular community.
++++++++++=
Have you actually ever ventured out of your familiar environs of Edison and Jersey city to have an idea how diverse America really is and how insular the life of an ordinary American is?
++++++++++++
Edison is hardly mainstream America.
#32 Posted by ssdhillon on January 10, 2003 4:03:48 pm
#24 by Urstruly on January 10, 2003 12:57pm PT
++++++++++
Oh that`s great finally, I have found a Hindu who claims to know every thing. Arjun would you or any other Hindu who claim to be the world expert on terrorism would care to explain what is this:
+++++++++
1. American Government orchestrated 911
2. Only Mujahideen were involved in Kargil
3. 1 mulsim = 10 non muslims
4. Pakistan won the 1965, 1971 wars
5. There is no infiltration from Pakistan into Kashmir
6. Dead jehadis get 72 virgins...
7. The moon landing was a fake.
Let me know.....I will add more facts to the list.
#31 Posted by sac on January 10, 2003 4:03:48 pm
re slave driver #28:
Again no answer to my numerous qurestions. You are almost at .10 percent anyway so I`ll play along. Here we go again.
Here is the gist of your plea ``People who listen to talk radio are more politically concious.`` What does that mean? Let me break it you gently. There is no cause and effect here. Talk radio does not make someone politically conscious. Its like saying drunkenness is caused by Heineken. People who want to get drunk will get high on Merlots or Budweisers(though it will take longer :). Its the people`s choice. Similarly politically conscious people will tend to devour information from a variety of sources including talk media.
Following a multitude of media and information sources makes one more politically conscious not following someone like Lambaugh alone. Infact the mere fact that these people have an inherent distrust of *traditional* media outlets makes them more amenable to alternative sources of information be it Matt Drudge or your nemesis The Village voice.
Now go get your blood alcohol level checked. I have a feeling I`ll have to come back after the weekend and give you the enema you so desperately need.
later
-sac
Stuka: Stop playing the spoiler.........................;)
Again no answer to my numerous qurestions. You are almost at .10 percent anyway so I`ll play along. Here we go again.
Here is the gist of your plea ``People who listen to talk radio are more politically concious.`` What does that mean? Let me break it you gently. There is no cause and effect here. Talk radio does not make someone politically conscious. Its like saying drunkenness is caused by Heineken. People who want to get drunk will get high on Merlots or Budweisers(though it will take longer :). Its the people`s choice. Similarly politically conscious people will tend to devour information from a variety of sources including talk media.
Following a multitude of media and information sources makes one more politically conscious not following someone like Lambaugh alone. Infact the mere fact that these people have an inherent distrust of *traditional* media outlets makes them more amenable to alternative sources of information be it Matt Drudge or your nemesis The Village voice.
Now go get your blood alcohol level checked. I have a feeling I`ll have to come back after the weekend and give you the enema you so desperately need.
later
-sac
Stuka: Stop playing the spoiler.........................;)
#30 Posted by ssdhillon on January 10, 2003 4:03:48 pm
#22 by sac on January 10, 2003 12:57pm PT
++++++++++++++++
So if I listen to talk radio, I am most probably a conservative and correspondingly more like to vote
++++++++++++
Absolutely.....The republicans took to talk radio because they felt that the mainstream media(ABC, NBC, CBS, Newspapers, CNN) had a liberal tilt. Can you name one big liberal talk show host?? I can`t.
Talk radio in the US is basically a conservative media. They talk about the same things over and over again without tolerating a different viewpoint. The democrats want to promote talk radio but the fact remains that liberals are inherently more tolerant to a different viewpoint than the conservatives.....That is why they are called liberals.
++++++++++++++++
So if I listen to talk radio, I am most probably a conservative and correspondingly more like to vote
++++++++++++
Absolutely.....The republicans took to talk radio because they felt that the mainstream media(ABC, NBC, CBS, Newspapers, CNN) had a liberal tilt. Can you name one big liberal talk show host?? I can`t.
Talk radio in the US is basically a conservative media. They talk about the same things over and over again without tolerating a different viewpoint. The democrats want to promote talk radio but the fact remains that liberals are inherently more tolerant to a different viewpoint than the conservatives.....That is why they are called liberals.
#29 Posted by arjun_m on January 10, 2003 2:32:15 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#28 Posted by arjun_m on January 10, 2003 2:32:15 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#27 Posted by bat on January 10, 2003 1:46:15 pm
bbabu#8
where did i say i ``like`` the regimes in those countries you mentioned?? i just dont think the US should go on doing what it feels like..we all know osamabinladen and saddam were proteges of America and now that the tables have turned, they choose not to acknowledge they ever had anything to do with them. Their foreign policy is severely
warped and thats what needs attn.I`m very grateful to Uncle Sam for weakening the Taleban and making Saddam vulnerable but the principle of letting the US do what it pleases for its oil interests is simply scary.
I WISH that all the talebans in pakistan and their friends would be deported to these countries but unfortunately they are pakistani citizens..and thats just wishful thinking.
where did i say i ``like`` the regimes in those countries you mentioned?? i just dont think the US should go on doing what it feels like..we all know osamabinladen and saddam were proteges of America and now that the tables have turned, they choose not to acknowledge they ever had anything to do with them. Their foreign policy is severely
warped and thats what needs attn.I`m very grateful to Uncle Sam for weakening the Taleban and making Saddam vulnerable but the principle of letting the US do what it pleases for its oil interests is simply scary.
I WISH that all the talebans in pakistan and their friends would be deported to these countries but unfortunately they are pakistani citizens..and thats just wishful thinking.
#26 Posted by stuka on January 10, 2003 1:14:51 pm
Urstruly:
`` I want some answers before I deliver my guilty verdict ``
Is this dude some judge or something?? Talk about an inflated sense of self worth??
`` I want some answers before I deliver my guilty verdict ``
Is this dude some judge or something?? Talk about an inflated sense of self worth??
#25 Posted by stuka on January 10, 2003 1:14:51 pm
Arjuhn_M:
LOL!! U messed up big time by messing with Sac. He could take you apart without breaking a sweat.
See, the Urstruly and Faisaluno type make it seem so easy to rip a Paki apart...gives you a sense of overconfidence..and that`s a kicker...coz u are dead meat in an arguement with him.
Word of advice: Lay low on this board.
LOL!! U messed up big time by messing with Sac. He could take you apart without breaking a sweat.
See, the Urstruly and Faisaluno type make it seem so easy to rip a Paki apart...gives you a sense of overconfidence..and that`s a kicker...coz u are dead meat in an arguement with him.
Word of advice: Lay low on this board.
#24 Posted by sac on January 10, 2003 12:57:26 pm
re slave driver #21:
OK I am going to keep giving you more and more rope........
``Dont tell me you dont know that people who listen to talk radio are more conservative and more likely to vote.``
So if I listen to talk radio, I am most probably a conservative and correspondingly more like to vote. Any proof of that brilliant hypothesis Sherlock?And thats why Buchanan will someday win the Presidency...Right? His 448,000 votes in the 2000 election has everyone trembling in his chappals. Any other poorly contructed arguments in your knapsack?
``I`ll take CIO magazine anyday over jihad.com......``
CIO is now offering remedial English and logic courses for proprietors of body shops owners in all major cities. Sign up immediately. You`ll find a lot of school buddies there.
later
-sac
OK I am going to keep giving you more and more rope........
``Dont tell me you dont know that people who listen to talk radio are more conservative and more likely to vote.``
So if I listen to talk radio, I am most probably a conservative and correspondingly more like to vote. Any proof of that brilliant hypothesis Sherlock?And thats why Buchanan will someday win the Presidency...Right? His 448,000 votes in the 2000 election has everyone trembling in his chappals. Any other poorly contructed arguments in your knapsack?
``I`ll take CIO magazine anyday over jihad.com......``
CIO is now offering remedial English and logic courses for proprietors of body shops owners in all major cities. Sign up immediately. You`ll find a lot of school buddies there.
later
-sac
#23 Posted by faisaluno on January 10, 2003 12:57:26 pm
oh no. we are in real trouble now. rats who fed off the kachra found on times of india board have started to migrate here. chowk editors must be really desperate for an it job. why else would they allow these vermins to pollute the cyberspace?.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: that's the whole thing....religious... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Eklavya: yeah mohar, but hamidm... Muslim Ghettoisation
- mohar11: Re: # 172 hamid well,... Muslim Ghettoisation
- mohar11: Re: # 172 hamid well,... Muslim Ghettoisation
- mohar11: Re: # 172 hamid well,... Muslim Ghettoisation
- mike195879: It is a... Yet Another Immigrant Story
- akcheema: I am still at... Muslim Ghettoisation
- quin: Re: # 43 Your... Diabetes: Wrestling with a
