Interesting map of Iraq

[umbrella39]

Thanks for the link. I heard about it on the news today and am happy someone linked the map. I have no clue why we have to try and minimize what is really going on over there. Ah, silly me, it is election season. I would respect Bush much more if he could just be more honest with the state of Iraq.

The insurgency is NOT confined to a few small areas as we keep suggesting.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This map has an obvious purpose: propaganda. Without any source of comparison, that's all it is

Propaganda toward what end? It's not intended to show that Iraq is a dangerous place (though I think that's a fairly noncontroversial assertion), but to show that insurgent attacks are spread all over the country. It was prepared using data from a private firm that provides security consulting services to businesses operating in Iraq, using data provided by US and Iraqi security forces.

It would be as meaningless to compare it to prewar Iraq, as it would be to compare it to Greenland, or British Guyana. It's relevant to showing the situation in Iraq today, not what was present two years ago.

I think I liked you better under your old identity.

What was that? "Assclown?" I love how Cyclowizard claims to use his vaunted "logic" and "reason" and then plonks a turd of a diversionary post in here. I tell you he's stinkin' up the place ... where in the hell is Cad to make sure he stays OT?!?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ayup...you're a troll. You've even admitted to being one.

The fact that you have the critical thinking skills of a fetus makes me a troll? I may be a troll, but that's the worst reason for calling someone a troll I've ever heard.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Personally, I'd award both titles to you, along with "bleating Bush apologist" for good measure. You're the one who tried to divert any hint of criticism from your feckless leader by suggesting violence in the U.S. is in some way comparable to violence in Iraq. It's not, not in the slightest, not in any way, shape, or form, and for you to suggest otherwise is assinine.

The map is a simple expression of facts. Facts. If you think those facts are hurtful to King George, then maybe you should extract your head from his posterior and think about why that is. Sometimes the truth hurts. You can either accept it and get on with your life, or you can cower in fear and try to deny it. I find it repugnant that you care more about GWBush -- one man -- than you do about America and our men and women in Iraq.

:disgust:

Obviously, you're someone with little experience with 'facts', else you'd realize that this is propaganda (ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect). With no basis for comparison, the 'facts' presented are meaningless propaganda, as I've stated previously. Nor did I ever suggest that the stats in the US were comparable, just that it would give a frame of reference. Further, I daresay I have a lot more friends and family in Iraq than you'd care to count. But, of course, when you're wrong, ad hominems are always fun. :roll:

Originally posted by: DonVito
Propaganda toward what end? It's not intended to show that Iraq is a dangerous place (though I think that's a fairly noncontroversial assertion), but to show that insurgent attacks are spread all over the country. It was prepared using data from a private firm that provides security consulting services to businesses operating in Iraq, using data provided by US and Iraqi security forces.

It would be as meaningless to compare it to prewar Iraq, as it would be to compare it to Greenland, or British Guyana. It's relevant to showing the situation in Iraq today, not what was present two years ago.

Propaganda to turn more people against the war. Providing any frame of reference would give the data meaning. Comparing it to pre-war Iraq would give an indication of progress made in either direction.

I think I liked you better under your old identity.

:roll: I already posted a pic. Smoke a cock.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard


Propaganda to turn more people against the war. Providing any frame of reference would give the data meaning. Comparing it to pre-war Iraq would give an indication of progress made in either direction.

This is a simpleminded analysis that ignores the actual purpose of the map - to show the geographical breadth of the insurgency. We have neoconservative pundits claiming that all is well in Iraq with the exception of 3 cities (I could, in fact, find a post here on ATPN saying more or less these exact words), and the map clearly shows that's not true.

As such, a historical map of violence in Iraq would do nothing to elucidate the content in this one.

:roll: I already posted a pic. Smoke a cock.

You might want to edit that, tiger - you'll get a vacation that might interfere with your staggering posts/day average.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Propaganda to turn more people against the war. Providing any frame of reference would give the data meaning. Comparing it to pre-war Iraq would give an indication of progress made in either direction.

Horsecrap! It's data plotted on a map. You just don't like what it's implying because you, like your idol Mr. Bush, apparently enjoy living in a fantasy world of spin where all of Iraq is a peaceful playground where everyone is happy and no one ever gets killed. Man, you need a serious dose of reality.

I think I liked you better under your old identity.

:roll: I already posted a pic. Smoke a cock.

Nice. Is that another example of your "incredible knowledge?" Or how about your vaunted "logic and reason?"

Pathetic. :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is a simpleminded analysis that ignores the actual purpose of the map - to show the geographical breadth of the insurgency. We have neoconservative pundits claiming that all is well in Iraq with the exception of 3 cities (I could, in fact, find a post here on ATPN saying more or less these exact words), and the map clearly shows that's not true.

As such, a historical map of violence in Iraq would do nothing to elucidate the content in this one.

It's simpleminded to think it's not propaganda. It's the definition of propaganda - look it up in your dictionary. You can spin it however you want? Then so can I.

You might want to edit that, tiger - you'll get a vacation that might interfere with your staggering posts/day average.

If I get vacationed for that, then so be it. Your idiocy is astounding, and I've had a long day so I'm not exactly in the mood to be coddled by a troll. If I'm an old poster, prove it or kindly STFU. It was old 6 weeks ago when you first started. I thought posting the pic shut you up, but instead you're more petty than I thought. You'll bring it up at any time when someone disagrees with you. :roll: Go eat this

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

If I get vacationed for that, then so be it. Your idiocy is astounding, and I've had a long day so I'm not exactly in the mood to be coddled by a troll. If I'm an old poster, prove it or kindly STFU. It was old 6 weeks ago when you first started. I thought posting the pic shut you up, but instead you're more petty than I thought. You'll bring it up at any time when someone disagrees with you. :roll: Go eat this

Dude, you haven't even been here for 6 weeks, at least not as CW, whose account is only a month old. I'll stop bringing up your identity if it bothers you so much, though I still find it hard to believe a "brand-new" poster would put up 40-50 posts a day and repeatedly say things, as you did during your first week, about how other posters "used to be" worthwhile but have morphed into trolls.

As for the topic of this thread, it strikes me you're being opaque and unreasonable. As I said, I will stop accusing you publically of having an alter ego, but you're the one you resorted to profanity.

I actually welcomed you when you first arrived (because you seemed more reasonable than what I thought - perhaps incorrectly - was your prior identity). Now it strikes me you are far too thin-skinned, and fundamentally disinterested in real debate, so in that respect I guess I'm just disappointed.

 

[chowderhead]

I actually like these map.
Iraqi oil fields ... from Cheney's secret Enegry Meetings back in 2001. Good thing Cheney was preparing for the future.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Dude, you haven't even been here for 6 weeks, at least not as CW, whose account is only a month old. I'll stop bringing up your identity if it bothers you so much, though I still find it hard to believe a "brand-new" poster would put up 40-50 posts a day and repeatedly say things, as you did during your first week, about how other posters "used to be" worthwhile but have morphed into trolls.

As for the topic of this thread, it strikes me you're being opaque and unreasonable. As I said, I will stop accusing you publically of having an alter ego, but you're the one you resorted to profanity.

Profanity is the last resort when logic and common language fail. Neither of these prevail upon you, so I have no other recourse. I honestly don't give a rat's whether or not you think I'm someone else. The fact that you use this statement in lieu of an argument, however, is indicative of your ability to argue your point logically. If you find yourself stuck, then you resort to 'oh, aren't you xxxxxxx old poster?' Childish, at best.

As for my 'opaque and unreasonable' viewpoint, it's hardly that. If I presented facts in my dissertation showing some set of data without any frame of reference, it would be dismissed out of hand. By not giving any reference for this data, it therefore can be construed as nothing but propaganda.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Profanity is the last resort when logic and common language fail. Neither of these prevail upon you, so I have no other recourse. I honestly don't give a rat's whether or not you think I'm someone else. The fact that you use this statement in lieu of an argument, however, is indicative of your ability to argue your point logically. If you find yourself stuck, then you resort to 'oh, aren't you xxxxxxx old poster?' Childish, at best.

As for my 'opaque and unreasonable' viewpoint, it's hardly that. If I presented facts in my dissertation showing some set of data without any frame of reference, it would be dismissed out of hand. By not giving any reference for this data, it therefore can be construed as nothing but propaganda.

I've now twice responded to the content of your argument. Go back and read the posts.

For your benefit, I'll reiterate a third time, free from any commentary about you personally: a historical frame of reference would add nothing to the impact of this map, which is intended to show the geographic spread of the insurgency, not to contrast the 2300 or so attacks from the last month to the number that Iraq has historically experienced. You might as well demand a map of violence in downtown Sao Paolo, or, for that matter, a map of all tagged Komodo dragons in the wild - none of these would add anything IMO.

If you honestly can't see that, you are being opaque and/or unreasonable.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I will agree, though, to expand on your point, that a map or other historical comparison showing the total number of terrorists attacks globally over the last few years would be useful in showing the efficacy of the neoconservative/PNAC plan we've followed since 9/11. The State department maintains numbers on this, but their methodology is, IMO, rather questionable.

 

[CycloWizard]

I actually welcomed you when you first arrived (because you seemed more reasonable than what I thought - perhaps incorrectly - was your prior identity). Now it strikes me you are far too thin-skinned, and fundamentally disinterested in real debate, so in that respect I guess I'm just disappointed.

I was more interested in real debate when I got here - that's why I joined the forum. I always came here to check hot deals (never posted, just read). I moved, had a few free days on my hand, saw a politics forum and thought maybe I could get some rational discussions. As I've said, I'm pretty new to the whole idea of politics. My ideas have been tempered quite a bit in the short amount of time I've been here. Some have even changed completely when I hear arguments that are based soundly on logic that I've never heard before. Of course, all of this is cast aside and I'm decried as a 'Bush apologist,' which is a complete joke. I've stated many times that Bush is a joke and would readily vote against him if Kerry wasn't even worse according to my stance on the issues. I try to choose a side in any argument based on my own brand of logic, reason, and experience same as you do. Problem is, this forum has a heavy liberal slant, so the majority of errors against reason and fact are performed by liberals. Therefore, when I point them out, I'm a Bush apologist? Hardly.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I actually like these map.
Iraqi oil fields ... from Cheney's secret Enegry Meetings back in 2001. Good thing Cheney was preparing for the future.

This map is GREAT too
Where al-Qaeda was known to be active as of 11-2001
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Why? Why don't you create one and start a separate thread?

Originally posted by: Todd33
I think we need a similar map of Poland and Iceland too.

Ah, two trolls all buddy-buddy. Makes me feel all warm and cozy inside. :roll:

This map has an obvious purpose: propaganda. Without any source of comparison, that's all it is. Are Iceland and Poland similar to Iraq? Doubt it. Do I have the capabilities of the NY Times to make such a map of other countries? No. One for each of you.

the map states facts, if it looks like propaganda to you, then too bad

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Also, major cities (e.g. Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk, and others) seem to be magnets for violence. We need to bomb those too. Until they're flat. With no cities and no roads to fuel the violence, freedom will be the Iraqis only option.

your sig disgusts me

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: raildogg
the map states facts, if it looks like propaganda to you, then too bad

Since apparently the definition of the word propaganda has been forgotten, let me remind everyone:

Propaganda
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: raildogg
the map states facts, if it looks like propaganda to you, then too bad

Since apparently the definition of the word propaganda has been forgotten, let me remind everyone:

Propaganda
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

hey w/e, i know what propaganda is and even if it is, its still accurate

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

By your standard, accurately reporting US casualties in Iraq is also propaganda, as is coverage of the American hostages being killed, because it reflects badly on the war effort.

Keep in mind, this data was gathered by a security consultant firm, using data provided by American and Iraqi security forces. I guess that makes them progagandists as well, eh?

The contents of this map are unvarnished truth. The fact that some Americans would rather these things weren't true doesn't change that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito
By your standard, accurately reporting US casualties in Iraq is also propaganda, as is coverage of the American hostages being killed, because it reflects badly on the war effort.

Keep in mind, this data was gathered by a security consultant firm, using data provided by American and Iraqi security forces. I guess that makes them progagandists as well, eh?

Body counts of soldiers have automatic references. I know when I hear the body count, automatically I compare in my head to previous engagements. I'd imagine you do the same. The killing of hostages is done AS propaganda, so yes, I'd say it's propaganda. I'd prefer it didn't get coverage at all - I think that would make the problem go away. They do it to get attention, and it's working, so it perpetuates itself.

Finally, data collection itself isn't propaganda. Propaganda is in the presentation.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Finally, data collection itself isn't propaganda. Propaganda is in the presentation.

I suggest you re-look at the map. It is a black-and-white diagram of where attacks have taken place, and their methodology. Again, it strikes me you're effectively saying any derogatory reportage is propaganda. As an American, you can be as opaque as you want - that's up to you - but don't pretend your mind is more open then it is.

FWIW, I would rather the war in Iraq had been a ringing success. I was proud to serve in the middle east in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and if I'm ordered to deploy to Iraq, I'll salute smartly and go. I sure as hell don't want my comrades-in-arms dying, nor do I want Iraqi police trainees and innocent civilians killed. That said, the situation there is bleak, and it doesn't seem to be improving, as Scty Powell himself said just the other day (does that make HIM an anti-Bush propagandist?).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Finally, data collection itself isn't propaganda. Propaganda is in the presentation.

I suggest you re-look at the map. It is a black-and-white diagram of where attacks have taken place, and their methodology. Again, it strikes me you're effectively saying any derogatory reportage is propaganda. As an American, you can be as opaque as you want - that's up to you - but don't pretend your mind is more open then it is.

FWIW, I would rather the war in Iraq had been a ringing success. I was proud to serve in the middle east in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and if I'm ordered to deploy to Iraq, I'll salute smartly and go. I sure as hell don't want my comrades-in-arms dying, nor do I want Iraqi police trainees and innocent civilians killed. That said, the situation there is bleak, and it doesn't seem to be improving, as Scty Powell himself said just the other day (does that make HIM an anti-Bush propagandist?).

You're arguing in circles. All I've asked for is some reference data so we have something to compare this map with. Somehow, that makes me closed-minded and oblivious to reality?

Your distortions are ridiculous. You're trying to misconstrue everything that I've said in an effort to strawman me to death. *throws up his hands* Discussions like this are why debating in this forum have gone downhill rapidly since I got here. You obfuscate issues and points until even the original arguer can't recall what the point was he was trying to make.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

You're arguing in circles. All I've asked for is some reference data so we have something to compare this map with. Somehow, that makes me closed-minded and oblivious to reality?

Your distortions are ridiculous. You're trying to misconstrue everything that I've said in an effort to strawman me to death. *throws up his hands* Discussions like this are why debating in this forum have gone downhill rapidly since I got here. You obfuscate issues and points until even the original arguer can't recall what the point was he was trying to make.

Cry me a river. As I said, I agree with you that historical data as to international terrorism would be useful, but that's not what this map is intended to convey - it's about the geographical spread, rather than the prevalence of terrorism today as opposed to in the past.

I actually don't think you're wrong, except to the extent you construe this map as useless propaganda in the absence of historical data (which would be irrelevant to the point of the map - indeed, you'll note the map specifically says "this period was neither the most violent nor the most quiet over the past year").

I'd be interested in what you say I'm distorting - I honestly don't get your point. I don't think I'm obfuscating anything at all, and I'm interested in what you have to say if you're willing to listen.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Cry me a river. As I said, I agree with you that historical data as to international terrorism would be useful, but that's not what this map is intended to convey - it's about the geographical spread, rather than the prevalence of terrorism today as opposed to in the past.

I actually don't think you're wrong, except to the extent you construe this map as useless propaganda in the absence of historical data (which would be irrelevant to the point of the map - indeed, you'll note the map specifically says "this period was neither the most violent nor the most quiet over the past year").

I'd be interested in what you say I'm distorting - I honestly don't get your point. I don't think I'm obfuscating anything at all, and I'm interested in what you have to say if you're willing to listen.

There you go with the strawman again. Did I say the map was useless propaganda? No. Do I think it's propaganda? Yes. Why do I think as I do? Because of the presentation. I can pick any set of data out of a hat and present it to the public, who will be none-the-wiser. Presenting only one side of any story is propaganda. You can argue that the map was presented SOLELY for the purpose of pointing out the geographic diversity of the attacks, but I doubt you really believe that.

Perfect example: I can present this data on condom failure. "24 sets of condoms tested and all failed" and almost 71% failed "In respect of one or more of the physical requirements of the specification, notably freedom from pinholes." SABS report April 89.

Does this one data set mean that condoms don't prevent the spread of AIDS, or that progress isn't being made as a result of their use? No. Me stating that as fact would be propaganda. Analogously, presenting a map for Iraq both before and after the war would give a frame of reference, as well as some data to use for the reader to decide how much progress is being made. The map as-is serves no purpose other than to visually stimulate readers into thinking Iraq is completely hopeless. If they wanted to point out the geographic diversity of attacks in Iraq, they could have simply stated what is stated on the picture. Hence, the propaganda is in the presentation.

 

[Michael]

Don Vito - I agree that the map does plot out where the attacks are taking place. I have an issue with the inference that they're widespread. The map itself contains the notation that most are in Sunni Arab areas.

Sunni Arabs are a minority in Iraq but held the power and supressed the other ethnic groups. As a group, they have probably lost the most in terms of power and influence in Iraq. It makes perfect sense to me that there would be more attacks from that group.

The map also supports the assertion that the majority of the population is not behind the insurgency. The much smaller number of attacks in Shiite areas or Kurdish areas shows that most Iraqi's do not seem to be attacking the Americans (or British).

The propaganda I see is taking the map and then proclaiming that it shows that the insurrection is widespread. It actually does not show that.

Michael

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Also, major cities (e.g. Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk, and others) seem to be magnets for violence. We need to bomb those too. Until they're flat. With no cities and no roads to fuel the violence, freedom will be the Iraqis only option.

your sig disgusts me

Your support of a President that condones abuse and torture disgusts me.