From: Neil Harrington on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999(a)> wrote:
>>> It's a harmless photo that means nothing. Too bad the guy died (the
>>> photographer probably didn't know this at the time).
>>I'd like to see more pictures of dead journalists, though. Makes me
> Quite the murderous fascist, aren't you?

Actually, fascists (capitalized or not) were never as brutal in suppressing
journalists as communists always were. Plenty of photographs and news came
out of Nazi Germany, Fasicst Italy and Franco's Spain even during their
Civil War years (see Capa's work, for photos).

Where are the photos showing the Soviet suppression and slaughter during the
Stalinist decades? And now we have Hugo Chavez shutting down TV and radio
stations, fining newspapers, arresting journalists etc., while every
left-wing looney in Hollywood gushes about what a hero he is, and Oliver
Stone is about to give us another one of his fantasy-as-history movies
showing us yet again the evils of capitalism and Wall Street vs. the wonders
and glories of communism.

From: Bill Graham on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> The enemy don't want to show pictures of their dead fighters.... but
> pictures of dead civilians show how bad the US military (in this case)
> really is.
Too bad we can't go back in time and refuse to help you fight Adolf in the
40's......Our efforts were certainly wasted on the likes of you, you
idiot. - Maybe in another Universe.......

From: Bill Graham on

"DG" <xxxxxxxx(a)xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>He may be "speeches and promises ahead of" every president we've ever had.
>>Has he made even a single promise that he hasn't already broken or is now
>>the process of breaking? Other than breaking promises he hasn't done
>>anything but speeches and promises so far, and his agenda being what it is
>>only hope he continues at the same rate of non-performance.
> He did overturn the stem cell research ban. That was a promise that
> came true.

And, I believe this was the only congressional bill that Bush vetoed in his
entire 8 year term.....He signed all the rest of them. And yet, the
Democrats blame him for everything he did. I wonder what they would have
said had we had a real conservative president in the office?

From: Bill Graham on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> In message <h88ss8$d0e$1(a)>, Pete Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr(a)> writes
>>"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>> In message <h847ec$skt$2(a)>, Doug McDonald
>>> <mcdonald(a)> writes
>>>>DG wrote:
>>>>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>>>>>> Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
>>>>>> marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much
>>>>>> news here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>>> <,news,photograph-of-dying-
>>>>>> I'm all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on
>>>>>> may occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So
>>>>>> I'm in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern
>>>>>> on showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?
>>>>> What's a photographer supposed to do? Quit shooting in a war zone
>>>>> because someone might die? If people are upset about the photo
>>>>>then they should blame the
>>>>> politicians for the war, not the photographer for the image.
>>>>NO! They should blame the scum people who print it against
>>>>the family's wishes,
>>> Does that go for ALL pictures from war zones?
>>>>and the people who
>>>>started the war: al Qaeda and the Taliban.
>>> No... They did not start it.
>>An attack on our soil at the WTC was not the start of the war?
> Not at all.
> 9/11 was the third in a series of retaliation attacks. The first two
> were US embassies in Africa.
> They were in retaliation for previous US attacks.
Chris' version of history is to go back far enough to find some minor insult
that the US made or did, and mark that as the, "start of the war". Since
these kinds of acts have been going on for centuries, he will always be able
to find them if he goes back far enough in time, so he will always be able
to justify his version. Arguing with him is a waste of time,

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-09 18:33:20 -0700, DG <xxxxxxxx(a)xxxxxx.xxxxxx> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> You are living in a fantasy World of "cloak & dagger" fiction. Through
>> the 50's & 60's for the most part the CIA operatives were assigned to
>> US Embassies and Consulates as trade representatives or assistants to
>> the Embassy military attache. They were not trained killers. They were
>> gatherers of information and spreaders of disinformation. Occasionally
>> they would pull strings in the background to foment coups and revolts.
>> They would not lead them.
>> They would find support with opposition groups in "frontline" countries
>> via funding, and cultivate different individuals and groups within
>> local industry and government.
>> They got the locals to do the dirty work. They were the ones who
>> engineered some of the changes, not the ones who executed them.
>> All you have to do is go back to the 1953 overthrow of Mussadegh and
>> the reinstatement of the Shah in Iran.
> So that isn't leadership? You wrote, "They would not lead them."

Correct. They would not lead the coups or revolts. They would pull
strings in the background and hedge bets by supporting in some cases
both sides, or even a third competing group.

Witness Iran-Contra and the Ollie North weapons for hostages deal.
Also secret funding and leaking of intelligence to South Africa, in the
face of the anti-apartheid arms embargo, to fight the Cubans and East
Germans in Angola. George H.W. Bush was Director of the CIA for that
one. When the wrong side won the US vetoed Angolan entry into the
United Nations. Can you say sore loser.

> You might want to read the documents seized by the Iranian hostage
> takers back in 1979. Turns out that the US embassy in Tehran was used
> to the kids entering the compound and the police showing up and
> shooing them off. So when they finally entered the building the
> destruction of documents did not happen. So the Iranians rid
> themselves of the Shah and hold an election but before election day
> they find out that both candidates have been on the US payroll for
> years. That's when the mullahs had Iran handed to them.
> I believe the Iranians issued 22 volumes of all the information siezed
> at the US embassy. Not available in the USA...

The US caught with its hand in the cookie jar, so to speak.