Control Room

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Control Room
Inside Al Jazeera

By MIKE WHITNEY

There's a chilling scene in Jahane Noujaim's new documentary Control Room where an American F-16 is seen slowly turning in the sky over Baghdad. The plane arcs lazily in the blue sky and then quickly noses downward, following a straight line towards the building that houses the Al Jazeera news facility.

In a flash, two laser guided missiles are fired at the building and their impact knocks out the visual.

It all happens in a matter of seconds.

Veteran journalist, Tarik Ayoub was killed instantly in the attack.

Later that same day, fighter pilots would bomb the Abu Dhabi media facility in similar fashion.

The day's events would end on the streets of Baghdad where an Abrams Tank slowly turned its turret towards the Palestine Hotel; the accommodation for all the visiting media in Iraq.

The tank lifted its muzzle towards the 13th floor, and moments later fired...killing a Spanish journalist and wounding three others.

No one who sees this shocking segment will confuse it for anything other than what it was....cold blooded murder, authored and directed by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. (Al Jazeera even provided the US Military with its exact coordinates so they wouldn't be attacked as they were in Kabul)

No officer, however vindictive, would have ever jeopardized his career with such a reckless and ruthless attack on innocent people.

The order came straight from the top, and it bears Rumsfeld's imprimatur.

The footage of Ayoub's colleagues back in Doha is devastating.

They all know what they've just witnessed, and the control room is silenced with a palpable sense of horror.

No one has any misgivings about the message being conveyed.

As Al Jazeera's chain smoking manager avers, "We were told that 'you are either with us or against us'....we have received receipt of that message."

It's gut wrenching.

The majority of American's dismiss Al Jazeera as radical, Muslim propaganda.

They need to suspend their judgment until they see this movie...then decide.

The Al Jazeera news room reminds me of one of those old Billy Wilder movies where everyone is frantically running into each other trying to get the story out.

It bears no resemblance to America's assembly line news broadcasts, with slick looking male models delivering the "corporate friendly" version of events, suitably watered down with endless commercial interruptions and inane human interest stories.

This is hard-edged news.

It's easier to imagine Mencken or Edward R. Morrow wandering these halls than the likes of Brit Hume or, God forbid, that fatuous fathead, Bill O' Reilly. ("Just shut up!")

Most of Al Jazeera's team are graduates of the BBC, an institution that is still respected around the world for its objectivity and in-depth reporting. ( although the quality of BBC reports seem to be on a steady decline)

This insures that the standards of journalism are high and that the stable of talented and committed reporters is quite expansive. (Up close, though, the reporters just look like "stressed out newshounds" trying to meet a deadline.)

Apart from the control room chaos, these are flesh-and-blood people and their humanity is readily on display. The documentary is a fascinating window into the everyday lives of people who are willing to put themselves at personal risk to present the events of the day in an unbiased platform.

In Rumsfeld's parlance, this is tantamount to an act of war.

His response (bombing errant TV stations) indicates how seriously he regards the threat of news that doesn't go through the Pentagon filtration system.

Al Jazeera that has created a furor among the head honchos in the Bush Administration. Their pictorial representation of the war in Iraq is at odds with the cheerful narrative of "liberation" and "democratization" being propagated in the western press. Charred bodies and dead children tend to disabuse viewers of the foolish notion that "wars of aggression" serve a humanitarian purpose.

American's have been carefully screened from seeing any sign of the vast devastation and suffering caused by the conflict.

For many, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 was probably the first time they even saw video of either dead Iraqis or American amputees. These are the real costs of Bush's illegal war. They are shockingly different than the "Pollyanna" footage of laughing children and "rebuilt" schools on the FOX News channel. The audience will have to decide for itself which representation comes closer to the truth.

American's will feel at home with the main characters in Control Room. As a rule, they seem bright, sardonic and hopelessly disheveled. They are sadly reminiscent of the journalists who at one time made US newsrooms the center of the media universe. Regrettably, the have been replaced by cardboard paste-ups of "Barbie and Ken" who give the nightly news all the credibility of a Vegas strip show.

The boiler-room atmosphere of Control Room indicates that serious journalism is still "alive and well" at a far-flung TV station in Doha, Qatar.

At Al Jazeera the main players still talk about a world that is "conducive to freedom of the press and expression"; an idea that seems tragically out of step with America's commercially manufactured news. In the US the "bottom line" has long determined what stories end up on the cutting room floor.

The compelling need to generate profits is simply incompatible with objective reporting.

Al Jazeera was recently criticized by Iraq's new provisional government for "incitement."

In response they issued the following statement; "These kinds of allegations will not prevent the channel from pursuing its long cherished editorial independence, or its adherence to professional principles and internationally recognized media practices."

Editorial independence? Professional principles?

When was the last time these qualities were even remotely connected to western media?

FOX News, look out!

I'd be surprised if a lot of people don't find this movie as fascinating and infectious as I did.

Give it a shot...it's worth the 8 bucks.

Mike Whitney can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just saw the last half of it on CBC. The very fact that the CBC can show something like this speaks volumes about the difference between it and the other corporate media in North America.

I guess it's not much use posting this article if you haven't. It's been a long time since I have seen something so moving. I'm sure even the most ardent conservatives here cannot walk away unaffected after seeing this documentary.
 

d3n

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2004
1,597
0
0
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.
 

Jassi

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,296
0
0
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Uh..."source of intelligence information"? We're talking about the Al-Jazeera news station, not a government building.

"Al Jazeera even provided the US Military with its exact coordinates so they wouldn't be attacked as they were in Kabul."

Considering how guidance systems on fighter jets work on spatial coordinates makes this incident seem all the more intentional.

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

The author is not making a big deal of it anyway.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Why did it shoot, period? Are the tank commander or the platoon commander not informed enough to know that almost the entire hotel is occupied by journalists?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this documentary gives a real boost to Al-Jazeera as a media outlet. It is much more detached from any government or organization than any American media corporation. What does this mean? This means that people really shouldn't brush it aside as "Arab propaganda".

Speaking of Al-Jazeera, it's really unfortunate that even the Canadian government has bought into this mentality. They have finally allowed Al-Jazeera to be broadcast but only with round-the-clock monitoring/censorship for incitement. If this is how it's going to be, then there is really no point in broadcasting it at all. And this is why not a single cable company has so far decided to air it. It is the different perspective that matters which really sets it apart. I hope this can change in the future.
 

d3n

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2004
1,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.

It?s was not my aim to justify what was done. It was my aim to point out that not everything is a conspiracy from the top. I?m sure the overall tone of the movie is pretty informative about the day to day ops of Al Jazeera

To me its more of a tragedy when a U.S. gunner in the rear of a convoy sprays a car that?s following too close. The poor driver of the car just got himself and his family killed because he probably freaked out at the warning shot to get him to back off and hit the gas instead of the break. I am not going to cry for the journalists. They chose to be there. That guy was just trying to get home.

Theres always to sides to a story. Usually broadcast media of any persuasion only tells one side really well. Really tho, how can you fault ethier the 20 year old pfc acting as the rear gunner or the man that just got his family killed? I'm sure that the media would find a way.


 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.

They were civilians seeking fortune in a combat zone. It goes with the territory! They knew that when they set out to seek their fortunes!

 

Jassi

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,296
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.

They were civilians seeking fortune in a combat zone. It goes with the territory! They knew that when they set out to seek their fortunes!

As much as I hate the media and journalism, they are still civilian. Bombing civilian buildings (whether they are outlets or main offices) is against the "rules" of war. People cry foul when the Iraqis capture western journalists, why does your statement not apply then?
 

d3n

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2004
1,597
0
0
I am certain that building was used as a state run news outlet and that qualifies it as a goverment facility. It was no doubt being used for a mix of public and government use. I think it was even Baghdad Bobs place of work. It's no diffrent than a bridge or other public 'dual purpose' facilites that could aid in that coutries war machine. Much like telephone exchanges, and power plants.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.

They were civilians seeking fortune in a combat zone. It goes with the territory! They knew that when they set out to seek their fortunes!

As much as I hate the media and journalism, they are still civilian. Bombing civilian buildings (whether they are outlets or main offices) is against the "rules" of war. People cry foul when the Iraqis capture western journalists, why does your statement not apply then?

Not when they are doing intel work for the enemy. What you say is basically untrue on many fronts. The firts building destroyed in Greneda was the local TV station. First you destroy the defensive capability and then the communications capability of the enemy.

 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.

They were civilians seeking fortune in a combat zone. It goes with the territory! They knew that when they set out to seek their fortunes!

As much as I hate the media and journalism, they are still civilian. Bombing civilian buildings (whether they are outlets or main offices) is against the "rules" of war. People cry foul when the Iraqis capture western journalists, why does your statement not apply then?

Not when they are doing intel work for the enemy. What you say is basically untrue on many fronts. The firts building destroyed in Greneda was the local TV station. First you destroy the defensive capability and then the communications capability of the enemy.

Proof of them doing intel work for the "enemy"?
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Jassi
Originally posted by: d3n
Controlling an enemies ability to collect information is part of any war. Those sites were an obvious source of intelligence information that the Iraqi military at the time was utilizing. The targets were transmission antennas an not journalist. I am sure the F-16 was using a high-speed anti-radiation missile and not a high-speed anti-journalist missile

Its unfortunate that journalist were killed but how are they somehow exempt from the chaos of a battlefield? They are no different from the janitor that was unlucky to be working at any one of the command and control facilities that were bombed during the war.

Also, the American tanks decision to fire on the probably went no higher than the tank commander or the platoon commander. It was responding to what it saw as hostile fire.
Why did it shoot at some odd number floor and not the lobby?

Maybe when you are involved in a 'story' its sometimes easy to loose focus on true reasons that things happen. My suggestion for Mr. Whittney would be to take a step back and stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Thats a lousy justification for the death of civilians.

They were civilians seeking fortune in a combat zone. It goes with the territory! They knew that when they set out to seek their fortunes!


cool, so it's ok to behead american journalists by that logic! Bring out the blade boys!
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Not when they are doing intel work for the enemy. What you say is basically untrue on many fronts. The firts building destroyed in Greneda was the local TV station. First you destroy the defensive capability and then the communications capability of the enemy.

You couldn't be more hypocritical. What proof do you have that they were doing "intel work" for the "enemy"?

This just goes to show the kind of mentality prevalent in the minds of many here and in the western world that Al-Jazeera somehow is very closely related to the Arab governments and are proponents of their views to that end. This is simply not true.

Tell me, wasn't it the U.S. military which asked CBS to delay the airing of those damning Abu Ghuraib videos because of the on-going hostage situation in Iraq?
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
I saw the documentary. I found it biased. The unbalanced perspective seemed solely to justify Al-Jazeera as journalistic excellence. The commentary by many of the subjects in the film was laughable... the usual "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" type crapola. Sorry, thumbs down.....
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I saw the documentary. I found it biased. The unbalanced perspective seemed solely to justify Al-Jazeera as journalistic excellence. The commentary by many of the subjects in the film was laughable... the usual "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" type crapola. Sorry, thumbs down.....

Of course it was biased, I believe the larger reason for the movie was to try and show people an Al-Jazeera beyond the "anti-American terrorist sympathizers" many people think them to be.

I watched the movie from the perspective that I wanted to see more of what Al-Jazeera was about, because the only "information" I had on them was rants from people who wouldn't be happy unless they were the Fox News of the Middle East. So what did I get out of watching the movie? The feeling that they ARE a little biased, but also the feeling that they really want to report the news (especially the news they feel the Western media doesn't report very well) and that a lot of them are respectable journalists. They aren't quite as good (or unbiased) as they could be, but I feel like they'll get there eventually.

I'm not saying everyone should have got the same thing out of the movie, but I can say I went into the whole thing with no real views on Al-Jazeera at all. Can you say the same? Because it's kind of hard to form an opinion when you already have one, you view everything through your own biased lense.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
If <insert our opposition here> started murdering Journalists everyone would be screaming about the Geneva Conventions
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
If <insert our opposition here> started murdering Journalists everyone would be screaming about the Geneva Conventions

Hasn't that happened already? I think people were pretty pissed about that one.
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I saw the documentary. I found it biased. The unbalanced perspective seemed solely to justify Al-Jazeera as journalistic excellence. The commentary by many of the subjects in the film was laughable... the usual "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" type crapola. Sorry, thumbs down.....

Of course it was biased, I believe the larger reason for the movie was to try and show people an Al-Jazeera beyond the "anti-American terrorist sympathizers" many people think them to be.

I watched the movie from the perspective that I wanted to see more of what Al-Jazeera was about, because the only "information" I had on them was rants from people who wouldn't be happy unless they were the Fox News of the Middle East. So what did I get out of watching the movie? The feeling that they ARE a little biased, but also the feeling that they really want to report the news (especially the news they feel the Western media doesn't report very well) and that a lot of them are respectable journalists. They aren't quite as good (or unbiased) as they could be, but I feel like they'll get there eventually.

I'm not saying everyone should have got the same thing out of the movie, but I can say I went into the whole thing with no real views on Al-Jazeera at all. Can you say the same? Because it's kind of hard to form an opinion when you already have one, you view everything through your own biased lense.

Well said.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
I ended up getting that DVD the other day from Blockbuster (it was a previewed on sale for pretty cheap.) It's a rather eye-opening look into other viewpoints of America. I think everyone in this country should try and put themselves in the shoes of people from the other side of the pond once in a while. It's a big reason why I've been reading Tariq Ali's works lately.

You can also get the DisInfo DVDs (http://www.disinfo.com/site/) much cheaper at http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com. Similar in vein to the Control Room film.
 

Passions

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2000
6,855
3
0
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Passions
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:
Wow. Just wow.

Bush-God fanbois now turning into over-generalizing and exaggerating flamebaiters. Wow. Can't get more Bush-loving than this.

I would think this is almost an act of fascism. Next thing you know, you will be implanting chips in students. :thumbsdown:
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Passions
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:

Hey lemming. Try reading comprehension 101 at your local preschool. Might help.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Passions
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:
Wow. Just wow.

Bush-God fanbois now turning into over-generalizing and exaggerating flamebaiters. Wow. Can't get more Bush-loving than this.

I would think this is almost an act of fascism. Next thing you know, you will be implanting chips in students. :thumbsdown:

lol but they are implanting chips in students. ;)

So what's the next step?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Passions
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:
Wow. Just wow.

Bush-God fanbois now turning into over-generalizing and exaggerating flamebaiters. Wow. Can't get more Bush-loving than this.

I would think this is almost an act of fascism. Next thing you know, you will be implanting chips in students. :thumbsdown:
lol but they are implanting chips in students. ;)

So what's the next step?
Time to start the download process. ;)
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: Passions
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:

I pity your ignorance. As repugnant as burning flags is, I'll be sure to have some gasoline ready to piss off you and your ilk.
 

Passions

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2000
6,855
3
0
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: Passions
Wow. Just wow.

Liberal treemongers now turning into Al-Jazeera lovers, thinking it is unbiased and fair news. Wow. Can't get more Bush hating than this.

I would think this is almost an act of terrorism. Next thing you know, you will be burning flags in DC. :thumbsdown:

I pity your ignorance. As repugnant as burning flags is, I'll be sure to have some gasoline ready to piss off you and your ilk.

So you admit you are willing to be a flag burner? WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!

This country has gone down the tubes with anti-Americans like you.

:(
rose.gif