Beware of Thomas Friedman

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by Sadie from D007232.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu (129.59.7.232) on Monday, August 25, 2003 at 10:43AM :

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is giving an interview on NPR's "The Connection" where he *poses* as a "liberal." Anyway, he's saying that the liberals were not wrong in opposing the war in Iraq, as the "case against Iraq" was based on lies. However, his argument is that the U.S., now that it is "committed" to building Iraq, needs to build up more troops in Iraq because the U.S. is now fighting "World War III," against a group of people fighting for a religious ideology (he doesn't outright say it, but Islam), which has its base in central Iraq. So, Friedman, who is merely voicing the new view of the pro-Israeli right, is essentially stating that the "war" has now supposedly changed from fighting Saddam's "gang rule" to fighting religious fundamentalism.

Second, he is saying that the U.S. is not rebuilding Iraq, but *building* Iraq, which needs a stronger U.S. military police presence.... Again, the implication is that Iraqis can't do it themselves - that they NEED the U.S. to "build" their country (which must have never really existed before now). He also states that the U.S. military, not an international presence, needs to be in Iraq....

Basically, I see where he is going with this, & where the other sly foxes who pose as "liberals" or even moderate democrats like him are going to go, as well: they are going to propagandize the hell out of this supposed "World War III," & convince U.S. citizens of the necessity of giving up their loved ones to fight in Iraq - they want to *up* the threshold of American tolerance for a continuing attack against Iraq.

I hate Friedman - he uses half-truths to make anti-"Arab" or anti-Muslim arguments.... & worse yet, he survives to make it into print.... & like a child, he says, essentially, "I have been to Iraq, therefore I know what is really going on, so how can anyone argue against me?" Is that proof? Is legitimate backing for an argument these supposed things he's heard "from the people," etc.?

-- Sadie
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

one more thing - Sadie 4:26PM 08/25/2003 () (2)

In other words - Sadie 4:32PM 08/25/2003 () (1)
- "War Makes Privatization Easy" - Sadie 4:38PM 08/25/2003 () (0)

clarification - Sadie 12:47PM 08/25/2003 () (0)

Re: Beware of Thomas Friedman - farid 11:42AM 08/25/2003 () (1)

Re: Beware of Thomas Friedman - Sadie 12:51PM 08/25/2003 () (0)

more about Thomas "the poser" Friedman - Sadie 10:53AM 08/25/2003 () (0)

Re: Beware of Thomas Friedman - Sadie 10:48AM 08/25/2003 () (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:	( default )
Subject:
Message:	: Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is giving an interview on NPR's "The Connection" where he poses as a "liberal." Anyway, he's saying that the liberals were not wrong in opposing the war in Iraq, as the "case against Iraq" was based on lies. However, his argument is that the U.S., now that it is "committed" to building Iraq, needs to build up more troops in Iraq because the U.S. is now fighting "World War III," against a group of people fighting for a religious ideology (he doesn't outright say it, but Islam), which has its base in central Iraq. So, Friedman, who is merely voicing the new view of the pro-Israeli right, is essentially stating that the "war" has now supposedly changed from fighting Saddam's "gang rule" to fighting religious fundamentalism. : Second, he is saying that the U.S. is not rebuilding Iraq, but building Iraq, which needs a stronger U.S. military police presence.... Again, the implication is that Iraqis can't do it themselves - that they NEED the U.S. to "build" their country (which must have never really existed before now). He also states that the U.S. military, not an international presence, needs to be in Iraq.... : Basically, I see where he is going with this, & where the other sly foxes who pose as "liberals" or even moderate democrats like him are going to go, as well: they are going to propagandize the hell out of this supposed "World War III," & convince U.S. citizens of the necessity of giving up their loved ones to fight in Iraq - they want to up the threshold of American tolerance for a continuing attack against Iraq. : I hate Friedman - he uses half-truths to make anti-"Arab" or anti-Muslim arguments.... & worse yet, he survives to make it into print.... & like a child, he says, essentially, "I have been to Iraq, therefore I know what is really going on, so how can anyone argue against me?" Is that proof? Is legitimate backing for an argument these supposed things he's heard "from the people," etc.?

Optional Link ( default )
URL:
Title:
Optional Image Link ( default )
URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com