|
|
|
|
|
| What does the term "Liberal Media" mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 2:34:02 PM | Many seem to play fast and loose with this term "liberal"
The word is applied to many things ~ usually to diminish or discredit
Like ugly baby ~s``t yellow paint ~
I'd enjoy kicking this around some ~ and see what falls out.
How is it understood where you live? Where did it come from?
Who do you hear using it the most ? Do you use it alot?
Is there an antonym ~synonym ~ or homonym?
IT's meaning seems to vary around the country
For now ~ I'm calling it paint ~ dar | |
|
| |
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 3:15:07 PM | It means a whole bunch of anti America lies from editorializing types who don't understand that we want news, not opinion.
Thank God we have FOX News. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 3:22:28 PM | http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html
Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD
Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.
The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq — helped fuel support for the war.
While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans’ opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.
As the researchers explained in their report, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.”
Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.”
Case in point. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 3:29:56 PM |
What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Whenever I hear the term "liberal media" being used it means some right-wing nutjob is flapping his/her gums over something he/she knows nothing factual about (and can't actually make a logical argument about). | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 3:35:38 PM | | Liberal - as of and pertaining to liberty. The term has been perverted in America and Canada to refer to socialism - which is of course the complete opposite of liberty. It's disgusting the way politics twists the meaning of things. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 5:08:43 PM | Well this is a great start for a few hours ~ I look forward to hearing more ~ must more
This topic has been eating at me for awhile ~ It's my hope that somethings might come to light for one and all to see and ~ perhaps the word liberal might come to mean the same thing to all of us.
As is ~ I don't think it does.
Orginally the Progressive Party ~ rooted in social reform. This party has evolved into the Democratic Party. I wonder when the word "liberal" was attached to this party.
And the opposing Party ~ "Conservative" ~ Conserve what? ~ Whats being conserved?
has these words been turned into "just" paint color ~ A color to indenify a certain philosophy or predisposition. ~ Or is it just slime ~ to be throw at large groups of people ~ so one can get a good cover coat and identify.
To disagree you get the old slime ball.
It don't mean anything ~ except that you've been slimed? ~
and if it don't mean anything ~ why say it?
What does it mean? ~ It's used so often , you'd think many people would know ~ dar | |
|
| |
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/15/2008 8:27:38 PM | In the political context, liberal = the intellectual/political left/left-wing, the opposite is conservative = the intellectual/political right/right-wing. Of course, that's a really over simplified explanation.
Political liberalism is characterized by reform, broad mindedness and tolerance of different views/beliefs. Not constrained by tradition or orthodox/dogmatic views.
Political conservativism is characterized by adherence to traditional values and beliefs, reactionism (i.e., a desire for things to be 'like they used to be") and reluctance to change.
Liberal and conservative views range from mild to extreme. Radicalism is on the extreme end, or far left-wing of liberalism - Communism and anarchism. Ultraconservatives are on the extreme end or hard right of conservativism - White Supremacist Groups, the Religious Right. Of course, it's all relative really, compared to Holland, the US is very conservative/right-wing, compared to Iraq, the US is very liberal/left-wing.
I don't know when "liberal" and "conservative" were first applied to political ideologies but it seems to make sense to me as many of the other definitions of the words are indicative of the political perspectives they are applied to.
A liberal media would be a media source biased toward libralism. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 12:37:59 AM |
The term has been perverted in America and Canada to refer to socialism - which is of course the complete opposite of liberty. It's disgusting the way politics twists the meaning of things.
American roads are run under a socialist model. So is the Internet.
I'm not sure you really understand what you said.
To me "liberal media" means The Villiage Voice, LA Weekly, NOW and Eye.
Thank God we have FOX News.
Wow. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 1:56:12 AM | Most of American media now is corporate controlled, and corporations are not generally known for their liberal thought. 
I'd suggest anyone who thinks mainstream American media is liberally biased watch Bill Moyers "Buying The War".
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
The war , and it's coverage, is a perfect example of how many American journalists have forsaken their traditional role in society. They've generally lost their independence, and they've joined the aristocracy - at least the best known ones have.
They send their kids to the same private schools, live in the same gated communities, and are far removed from what they used to represent in far simpler times. Few , if any, are willing to take the type of stance that people like Edward R. Murrow, or Walter Cronkite did. There's too much of a risk they will lose their job if they do.
Even during Katrina, it took a while for many to get outraged. Few did, in any great measure, even after being on the ground for a while.
The Swift Boat incident also comes to mind, and many in the media were manipulated by political operatives. That should have been an easy story to examine, and discount. Few challenged it.
You have to look at the stories, what's being presented - and more importantly, what's not.
Kerry gets mentioned in connection with Heinz, and both he and Edwards are painted subliminally as "millionaires" . Bush and Cheney (both millionaires) never share the same fate. No one mentions Cheney's wife ( and family) being heavily involved with Lockheed Martin.
Just check out "Project Censored" to see some of the stories you never will see on American mainstream media. If they are ever mentioned, it's in passing.
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm
To really understand this in depth, you'll have to research a man called Edward Bernays. He's probably the most important man you've never heard of.
If you are one of those people who think bacon and eggs is the all American breakfast - you have him to thank for that menu selection.
He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn’t smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.
What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream
By Noam Chomsky
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chomoct97.htm
Here's "Propaganda" :
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
- Edward Bernays
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html
Also research Walter Lippmann, another key player.
He was, again, applying the lessons of the work on propaganda very explicitly. He says there is a new art in democracy called manufacture of consent. That is his phrase. Edward Herman and I borrowed it for our book, but it comes from Lippmann. So, he says, there is this new art in the method of democracy, "manufacture of consent." By manufacturing consent, you can overcome the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. We can make it irrelevant because we can manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them, even if they have a formal way to participate. So we’ll have a real democracy. It will work properly. That’s applying the lessons of the propaganda agency.
Academic social science and political science comes out of the same thing. The founder of what’s called communications and academic political science is Harold Glasswell. His main achievement was a book, a study of propaganda. He says, very frankly, the things I was quoting before—those things about not succumbing to democratic dogmatism, that comes from academic political science (Lasswell and others). Again, drawing the lessons from the war time experience, political parties drew the same lessons, especially the conservative party in England. Their early documents, just being released, show they also recognized the achievements of the British Ministry of Information. They recognized that the country was getting more democratized and it wouldn’t be a private men’s club. So the conclusion was, as they put it, politics has to become political warfare, applying the mechanisms of propaganda that worked so brilliantly during the first World War towards controlling people’s thoughts.
That’s the doctrinal side and it coincides with the institutional structure. It strengthens the predictions about the way the thing should work. And the predictions are well confirmed. But these conclusions, also, are not allowed to be discussed. This is all now part of mainstream literature but it is only for people on the inside. When you go to college, you don’t read the classics about how to control peoples minds.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chomoct97.htm
If one controls the media, then one controls the people.
“I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician,” Rendon said. “I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception manager.” He reminded the Air Force cadets that when victorious troops rolled into Kuwait City at the end of the first war in the Persian Gulf, they were greeted by hundreds of Kuwaitis waving small American flags. The scene, flashed around the world on television screens, sent the message that U.S. Marines were being welcomed in Kuwait as liberating heroes.
“Did you ever stop to wonder,” Rendon asked, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?” He paused for effect. “Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs then.”
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=299_0_1_0_M
Ahmed Chalab , referred to as "the George Washington of Iraq" was essentially created and managed by the Rendon group/CIA to serve the ends of the neocons through the INC (another American creation) . Although pushed as a figurehead, he was unelectable by the population.
Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi (born October 30, 1944) was interim oil minister in Iraq[2] in April-May 2005 and December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006. Chalabi failed to win a seat in parliament in the December 2005 elections, and when the new Iraqi cabinet was announced in May 2006, he was not awarded a post. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American neoconservatives,he has fallen out of favor and is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi
Ever hear about the National Applications Office ? Probably not....
Under a proposal being reviewed by Congress, a National Applications Office (NAO) will be established to coordinate how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and domestic law enforcement and rescue agencies use imagery and communications intelligence picked up by U.S. spy satellites. If the plan goes forward, the NAO will create the legal mechanism for an unprecedented degree of domestic intelligence gathering that would make the U.S. one of the world's most closely monitored nations. Until now, domestic use of electronic intelligence from spy satellites was limited to scientific agencies with no responsibility for national security or law enforcement.
The intelligence-sharing system to be managed by the NAO will rely heavily on private contractors including Boeing, BAE Systems, L-3 Communications and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). These companies already provide technology and personnel to U.S. agencies involved in foreign intelligence, and the NAO greatly expands their markets. Indeed, at an intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, last month, the titans of the industry were actively lobbying intelligence officials to buy products specifically designed for domestic surveillance.
Domestic Spying, Inc.
by Tim Shorrock , Special to CorpWatch
November 27th, 2007
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14821
US: Intel official: Say goodbye to privacy
by Pamela Hess , Associated Press
November 11th, 2007
A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14808
With both Iraq and America's economy, people outside the USA (and some enlightened Americans who chose to question things) saw great looming shadows on the future horizon long before mainstream America did.
Even reading through many past posts here, you'll see many Americans who will quickly parrot back the "status quo" position they've been programmed to adapt. Even as those storm clouds darkened, they were unable to listen to Cassandra's call.
Reality is a perceived thing, and perceptions can be altered with careful thought and planning. By selecting and promoting some things, and ignoring others, the media can essentially control the minds of many people. If those people choose to believe what they see, and are too busy (or too trusting) to research the veracity of the facts they are "given" by the media - it's rather simple to guide them to the end goal you want.
In this post Bernays world, with the recent shift in the last thirty years to overpowering corporate dominance of the media, the inevitable has occurred.
Reality is the new fiction. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 5:08:37 AM | Excellent! now we are getting somewhere ~ and my thanks to one and all for taking the time to read and share these ~ offered thoughts and considerations.
If you have chose to not post your personal feeling and shared with us ~ It my sincere hope that you at least ~ leave this thread with greater apperication for everyone thoughts and insights on this subject and left with your eyes open.
The spoken and written word carried profound power and impact, especially when it is hammered and hammered into your head , to the point that you are numb to it's meaning.
This being an election years, forces are ever busy attempting to sway your very thought process ~ to cloud your eyes ~ it's a mind grab! This foothold slant offered by the media and how it's being presented will greatly affect the outcome of the election.
If I tell you, The captain was sober today ~ does this knowledge support and make fact that he even drinks? Or that perhaps he wasn't sober yesterday? A grey cloud made in a perfectly clear sky created by five small words without support or foundation.
It's said , that if someone hears something three times it becomes the truth in the minds of many.
I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich! ~ lets go shopping ~ dar | |
|
| |
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 6:54:55 AM | One cannot really have a "liberal" media in a nation that prides itself in individual rights as one of it's most cherished values. Any "liberal" US politician quickly becomes a conservative when he crosses into almost any other country. 
If one looks at Canada's media (overall, although there are some exceptions to that rule), and especially any European country - the term "liberal" used in any American context is rather ironic.
Just look at the hits "liberals" take each and every day here from Americans who are deeply immersed in this particularly American view of it. To many, including the Foxinistas, that word is almost Satanic in it's meaning. 
Liberalism (and social democracy) is not really an American value in quite the same definition the rest of the world has of it. | |
|
| |
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 8:08:20 AM | Mr Charles,
The study done at the Maryland University was bias... their Liberals!
of course their story would be slanted to reflect their view points! The "Drive by Media" are comprised of Liberal/Demorcrat supporters, A study was done to see how many of them were Democrats and donated funds to Liberal/Democrat parties... over 85% vote and support the Liberal/Democratic party!
you wrote...
The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq — helped fuel support for the war.
Google WMD in Iraq...you will soon discover there have been countless supplies of WMD and documents to support Saddam had WMD going back to the late 8o's he used them on his own people! further more he sent many of them to Syria when he knew US troops were going to invade, but lets set that aside for a minute ...Saddam had violated over 100 agreements he made with the Un and US from back in 1991 he also was shooting at US planes in the no fly zone!
Everyone seems to enjoy demonizing Bush for actually enforcing agreements of the UN. Think back to the days when we first went into Iraq? The Iraqi people were celebrating in the streets throwing shoes and rocks at Saddams pictures! Al Qaeda saw it as an oppertunity to take over.... and they did so by slaughtering thousands of Iraqi's in the name of Allah and Bin Laden, until US forces could get a handle on the situation, put Al Qaeda on the run again..the Iraqi people were scared to death and being butcherd in their homes and on the streets by Al Qaeda to convert to Radical Islam!
Now since the surge and a better plan of securing their country..The people have switched over to aid and support US forces (over 80,000 of them not counting the Military) are side by side with Iraqi forces! newly trained to secure their own country, I understand the frustration by many, but if we would stop and think Our fore fathers came here in the 1400's it wasn't until 1776 we signed the Declaration of Independence! it took us nearly 200 years to secure our borders and freedom! with the aid of our Constitution we begin to enjoy some of the rights declared within...were still dealing and trying to enforce some of those rights .
Were dealing with a nation that in many ways still has 7th century mentality, and has never known Democracy! We have put into place a up and coming Military, Police force and Government..not perfect but a work in progress! in less then 5 years from the day we went in to Iraq! We brought to the table (3) seperate fashions and cultures of people to work together! Kurds, Sunnie's and Shi ites who have hated each other for 1000's of years! It's not perfect but allot of progress has been made! and We are there because the Iraqi people and Government want us their until their able to gain control of the situation!
People love to say Bush lied....but it took Congress to inact the war and funding! and they did, even Billary and Billy, Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy all the Liberals and Democrats over whelmingly supported taking Saddam out! The Democrats only turned when they felt the people here were not happy about the war! not because they felt like it was wrong but because they wanted to secure their seats in the house! Because of their flip flopping so much is why the New Congress has approval ratings as low as 11% never before in the history of this country has Congress ever carried such a low approval rating, even Bush was at 33% when Congress was at 11% ooch!
PocoLoco | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 8:34:24 AM | "Liberal Media" is supposed to mean liberal or free media without any restrictions or censorship. And we know that's not true in America.
What the rightwing think about the words "liberal media" is that it's the leftist media or a huge conspiracy by every major news network except Fox News to gang up and "fix" the news to destroy Bush's credibility.
Of course, the simplest answer is the best. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 9:11:14 AM | People here, from both sides of the fence, seem to like to copy and paste blog after blog and opinion after opinion, and somehow think their argument gains credibility in this fashion. You have to remember that whether it's you or someone else that wrote it, it's just an opinion... nothing more.
It's also just a point of view: 'liberal'. Either the media has become less liberal over the years, or I have become less conservative. Maybe some long-term hardcore left/right wingers can expound on this.
A more interesting question, I think, would be "Why do you think of yourself as liberal/conservative/etc?"
Many will cite many different reasons, I think, that they are impassioned about.
We all want the same things, really: Freedom, prosperity, & stable communities. It's just that we don't all agree on what courses of action are best to secure those interests. The media can confuse this further by putting 'spin' on things which makes them appear to come off as an authority on certain issues, when really they don't know any better than anyone else. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 10:19:57 AM | I don't use the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' in my political discourse.
For dividing up the world politically I return to Jefferson, as I often do, and use the words 'aristocrat' and 'democrat'.
In Jefferson's writings he characterizes aristocrats as those who 'distrust the people and so seek to gather all power into their own hands'. Democrats are those who 'trust the people and regard them as the most honest, if not always the wisest, holders of power'.
In my experience 'liberal' and 'conservative' are propaganda buzzwords. They don't have a real meaning. their purpose is to raise anger and hatred in the group the propaganda is aimed at. They are words with the rhetorical ability to end the debate once and for all with the other side the losers.
Homey don't play dat. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 10:33:51 AM |
The study done at the Maryland University was bias... their Liberals!
of course their story would be slanted to reflect their view points! The "Drive by Media" are comprised of Liberal/Demorcrat supporters, A study was done to see how many of them were Democrats and donated funds to Liberal/Democrat parties... over 85% vote and support the Liberal/Democratic party!
How about rather than arguing with the source, you indicate the flaw in their methodology?
Google WMD in Iraq...you will soon discover there have been countless supplies of WMD and documents to support Saddam had WMD going back to the late 8o's he used them on his own people! further more he sent many of them to Syria when he knew US troops were going to invade, but lets set that aside for a minute ...Saddam had violated over 100 agreements he made with the Un and US from back in 1991 he also was shooting at US planes in the no fly zone!
You will find no documentary evidence of WMD's being sent to Syria, and no WMD's were ever found. You my friend watch too much fox news.
Basically you're just another confirmation case for the maryland study. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 11:04:09 AM |
People here, from both sides of the fence, seem to like to copy and paste blog after blog and opinion after opinion, and somehow think their argument gains credibility in this fashion. You have to remember that whether it's you or someone else that wrote it, it's just an opinion... nothing more.
I'm not sure your background, but in most circles the display of citations and evidence is what shows the difference between an simple opinion like "I like ice cream" vs facts like such as Vanilla ice cream has 145 calories per half cup.
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/19095.html
You can dispariage citations all you want, just understand that it makes it much more difficult to take your opinions on weighty matters seriously. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 11:05:18 AM | Here's just one of many links... http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004
AFP
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:
click for images of Iraq's WMD location in Syria
-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.
-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.
-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.
ADVERTISEMENT
Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.
In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.
Click here for Satellite Images of the Syrian-Iraq's WMD Locations
Ad: Hate your job? Take the Tickle.com Free Career Test to discover your ideal career.
First Message from the Syrian source to Nizar Nayouf
First messages from a Syrian Source, WMD Location
"Dear Nizar.
We received confirmations that the Iraqi weapons, which were moved to Syria by the help of General Zoul-Himla Chalich are now hidden in three places inside Syria:
First place: a tunnel dug in the mountain close to the Al-Baïdah village, which is roughly two kilometers from Misyaf village. This place is under the 489 Safety cipher Documents' office control .
Second place: the factory of the Air Armed Forces in the village of Tal Sinan, between the town of Hama and Salamiyyah. This factory is under the Air Force control.
Third place: the location of Shinsar, 40 kilometers south of Homs, two kilometers east of the Homs - Damascus road. There are underground tunnels there, controlled by Brigade 661 of the armed air Forces. It is a Brigade of air Patrol. The tunnels are several tens of meters deep.
The weapons were transported in large wooden cases and barrels, under the supervision of the General Zoul-Himla Chalich and the son of his brother Assef, who works at Al-Bachaer company.
The company is owned by the Assad family and has offices in Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad.
This company also undertook the illegal Iraqi oil importation in Syria, and supplied weapons to Saddam. I will try to send you all the new information as i get .
Take care and be safe."
Second Message to Nizar Nayuf
Second messages from a Syrian Source, WMD Location
"Dear Nizar.
I have sent you another chart of the positions which tells where the weapons which were sent from Iraq into Syria, are hidden. Because the preceding chart that I sent you earlier is not clear.
Until now, the authorities in Syria did not worry of what was being published by the Dutch television news about this subject.
New information: The weapons were evacuated by the means of ambulances. Mohammed Mansoura also took part in the operation.
There are other serious, detailed pieces of information concerning the money of Saddam being moved into Syria and into Lebanon and those who took part in moving it - Syrians and Lebanese.Also there are more details about the assassination of the General Moustapha Tajer which took place last summer.
Take care of yourself.
Damascus, January 7, 2004."
Read Also : Iraq explosives has been moved to Syria by Russians
News About the Weapons of Mass Destruction from around the world:
what do YOU think!
Do you Think WMD are in Syria?
Yes
No
Have No idea!
View results
Version 2.02
Western spies: Syria storing WMD in Sudan
Washington Times, DC - Apr 8, 2004
... of mass destruction components to Sudan so they won't be detected anywhere in Syria . ... to face heavy US and international pressure to open its WMD facilities in ...
SYRIA SMUGGLES MISSILES, WMD TO SUDAN
Middle East Newsline, Middle East - Apr 8, 2004
LONDON [MENL] -- Syria's Defense Ministry has been smuggling missile and weapons of mass ... Scud C and Scud D extended-range missiles as well as WMD components to ...
Iraq minister says Saddam's WMD carefully hidden
Reuters AlertNet -29 Jan 2004
... Iraq's foreign minister said on Thursday Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, which inspectors have failed to find, were carefully hidden but Hoshiyar Zebari said he was confident they could be discovered.
Syria Role On Iraqi Arms Is Studied(Washington Post)
Seems to me the Liberal Media doesn't want to believe that there was far more to the story then meets the eye! but I assure you my friend..that many reports that are kept under wraps have proven weapons were there and taken to Syria, I don't write the reports nor live in a fantasy world based on what a Liberal driven media decides what we should or should not know?  | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 11:13:44 AM | We so how well those reports by Iraqi defectors were. You know, the ones who were later to have found to be completely dishonest.
Seems to me the Liberal Media doesn't want to believe that there was far more to the story then meets the eye! but I assure you my friend..that many reports that are kept under wraps have proven weapons were there and taken to Syria, I don't write the reports nor live in a fantasy world based on what a Liberal driven media decides what we should or should not know?
Uh huh, fact is even the US government doesn't believe the weapons were moved to Syria, which is why there talking about invading Iran, not Syria.
But hey, you can keep believing what Fox has told you after all. I mean your own intelligence groups find's it extremely unlikely, but who are they to argue with Bill O'Rielly? | |
|
| |
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 2/16/2008 11:39:43 AM | Mr.Charles,
May I call you Charlie? It's important to read prior to rendering any uninformed decision, the reports are not from Fox News, nor in many cases are defectors? nice try! But countless reports from journalist and reporters all around the world who have uncovered facts! Their non Bias...lol but think as you will it's your right to inform your self of what makes you feel good and a reason to berate those who are keeping us safe here at home!
I was hoping you might be willing to consider reports from those with no vested interest in any war, nor they them self are Americans! I guess I was wrong and I apologize for thinking you may truly seek the truth behind what is really going on in the middle east, and why so many are concerned, both here at home and abroard!
No need to continue this discussion...as your mind is not open to Truth behind the Lies! The United States of America has never invaded nor took over any country in the world, that did not ask for our help! Nor have we taken anyone's oil! they pay .08 cents a gallon for gas in Iraq we pay nearly 3.00 at our pumps! Thanx to Congress and the taxing of our Governments both locally and nationally! This country has never attacked anyone without being attacked first or asked by the people of any said nation to step in and aid them in the stopping of mass murder taking place to their fellow country men!
you should be proud of being an American rather then finding false ideas to bash and berate a Nation that protects you and I everyday! in 1776 July 4th we declared our Independence and have been so every since! This country has never taken over any Nation..we have help them liberate them selves from oppression! even at the loss of our own blood! Their is no country on this earth that the United States of America, took over as the spoils of war go to the victors! We gave it to the people of that Nation!
Thank me for the education | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
