I believe website hacking should be the least of our worries regarding this war. And considering the lack of media attention within the US for the mass anti-war demonstrations within the US, it is IMO good that some people try other means to bring such anti-war feelings to the people's attention.

Watching the US News media is almost like watching a hyped movie nowadays. IMO there's a lack of in depth discussions and sadly US citizens are generally very easily influenced by media/government propoganda.

Good

_________________
2017 Camaro 2SS

On a related article US tells hackers to leave iraq alone but why would they bother with a couple of iraqis with Vic 20`s anyway?

_________________

nothing wrong with Vic 20s - they were cool!

_________________
2017 Camaro 2SS

The horrible truth the western media doesn't want to show you.... Al-Jazeera Pictures taken in Basra. (Be warned, this is shocking and not at all suited for children)

Note the disclaimer at CNN.com: "EDITOR'S NOTE: CNN's policy is to not report information that puts operational security at risk. "

CNN cannot be trusted as an accurate and non-biased news source, despite popular American believe. However suprizingly today CNN did do an interview with an independent journalist, not tied to allied forces, who revealed that fierce battles were going on around Basra, despite ealier claims by British/American forces that everything is under control.

Quote:

And considering the lack of media attention within the US for the mass anti-war demonstrations within the US, it is IMO good that some people try other means to bring such anti-war feelings to the people's attention

Well, up until now, I would have agreed somewhat. But after seeing this morning's news, where it was showing thousands demonstrating in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and Los Angeles. These demonstrations were large, and some were countered with supporters of the War.

It's funny because we just had this conversation at work this past week. One of my co-workers was laughing at the news media in Iraq and a couple of other places and stating how nobody there could believe anything they said because they were so biased. Then I pointed out to him that this is exactly the same way the "rest of the world" looks upon the US and it's "news sources".

@MikeB

I realise that people die horribly and don`t just fall over a`la sunday afternoon war films.

Did they show those pics on iraqi tv?

I think that would make the iraqi`s surrender, not fight more!

_________________

@ LX-8

Actually I believe such pictures will make the Iraqi people more determined for counter attacking the American/British forces. I believe it would be the same if these were US civilians.

For example 11 Sept did not stop the US regarding their foreign policies. In fact the Americans have become more determined to back up their government despite unjust wars, violations of human rights and censorship.

These pictures are from Al-Jazeera, a very popular Arabic news agency. Broadly covered by Arabic speaking countries. (Inlcuding Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc)

I believe many countries have laws that stop such images of brutal fatality being broadcast onto television. other countries may be more relaxed
about showing real images of war (recall how much alarm, disgust etc the photo of the two horribly burnt young vietnamese girls running along road caused).

Also, this is a war filled with more propaganda than ever before. a war filled with more phrases and technology reports than ever before. there comes a point when you cant believe any of the sources.

al-jazeera, for example, have their own agenda, and the source of these images cannot be trusted either

The Al-jazeera website seems to be overloaded alot of the time. Probably because they are also showing videos of dead American soldiers and POWs.

IMO the internet is a true advantage for democracy, as it allows people to search for different points of view and non-censored information. The Americans can't silence agencies like Al-jazeera and other foreign media.

I hope that eventually most Americans get tired of the glorified movie style US coverage of this war and seek at other locations for information. IMO democracies only function well when people have access to information they can trust.

@MikeB

That of course is the whole cornerstone of a democracy.

If people cannot make enlightened, informed decisions then the democracy is only superficial.

Unfortunately I don't think MORE information is what is needed. Only education can help here.

People have to be smart enough to make their own decisions of the information made available.

Like MrE said above "al-jazeera, for example, have their own agenda".

Actually EVERYONE has their own agenda. You can pretty much pick out a headline from TextTV and right away understand which faction is behind the article.

I would agree that the internet is a wonderful source for information but it is mostly unreliable as there is no control at all as there would be in a nwspaper or TV network.

However the opportunity of being able to doublecheck from different sources almost immediately beat just about any other type of media.

Still the bad side effects are also multiplied as seen on many amiga sites. Rumours can be spread faster than ever before. Authenticity and source are almost impossible to verify. A concerted effort by a few people could do much harm before anyone can react.

Enough of that. I only casually read any news of the war since I'm almost 100% sure we won't find out what really happened until after it's all over (if we even find out then.)

But I am interested in the answers to one question.
If Iraq is in possession of mass destruction weapons and are such a threat to world peace in that they are willing to use them? Then why haven't they used them now when they are under attack from their most hated aggressors?

_________________
Fixed A1G4XE 7455 RX933PC with fried CPU
Sapphire Radeon 9100 128mb
ESI Juli@ 24bit 192kHz Envy24HT
Sil 680 Ultra Ata 133 E-ide
SeaGate Barracuda 120gb 8mb cache

@ Steff

Quote:

If Iraq is in possession of mass destruction weapons and are such a threat to world peace in that they are willing to use them? Then why haven't they used them now when they are under attack from their most hated aggressors?

Just like America, I am pretty sure that Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction when there is a significant threat for defeat. At least if they have access to such weapons.

I believe either they don't have them, just like Iraq has claimed all along and the inspectors were unable to confirm or deny due to lack of time or they don't feel that the regime is really under significant threat. I believe the first option would be more likely.

I also think that *disarming* a country for alleged weapons of mass destruction through military force is of a kind of logic which IMO makes absolutely no sense. It's like Russia attacking the US for having (and past abuse of) nuclear weapons. Uni-lateral pre-emptive strikes also make no sense to me, as *every* country could claim a pre-emptive strike on another country in "self-defence". (For example, Taiwan=>China, Pakistan=>India, Syria=>Israel, etc, etc and vice versa.)