Thread

Iraqi Information Minister:WTF?

Iraqi Information Minister:WTF? Troubleshooting 45 posts Apr 7, 2003 — Apr 8, 2003

#31 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 13:49

Speculation said that they had probably mistake the old RAF airport for Bagdad International.

BG

#32 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:

To be fair, both sides are lying: it's just that the Iraqis lies are more easily uncovered.

Granted, the Iraqi lies are easily uncovered, but our side isn't LYING. LYING requires INTENT TO DECEIVE. The US doesn't have intent to deceive. But you already knew that.

#33 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by finboy:
Granted, the Iraqi lies are easily uncovered, but our side isn't LYING. LYING requires INTENT TO DECEIVE. The US doesn't have intent to deceive. But you already knew that.

boy its a good thing we aren't like the iraqis: brainwashed to believe whatever the government says.

good thing, eh?

#34 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:13

Quote:

No, I'm sure there is some intentional "fun-with-facts" going on from the US side. But if you're going to lie, keep it simple and within the boundries of fact.

#35 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:20

Quote:

Your faith is admirable, even if I find it hopelessly naive.

When they tell untruths it's malicious, when we do it it's an honest mistake?

That's just silly, finboy. Once again I'm struck by the irony that I'm supposed to be the romantic idealist and you're supposed to be the hardbitten realist.

If they thought the Dow Jones would go up 1000 points, they would tell you that the moon was made of cheese.

I don't think the Pentagon is lying about the success of the war effort. I don't think they have a reason to. Things seem to be going miraculously well for them so far.

#36 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by boots:
No, I'm sure there is some intentional "fun-with-facts" going on from the US side. But if you're going to lie, keep it simple and within the boundries of fact.

I think there is some "fog of war" stuff, revisions ex post, etc. But I don't think there is any intentional lying that we'll never see corrected (some occassional, temporary disinformation is expected).

If the administration was lying or encouraging lies, they'd be taken out and nailed crosses, one by one, by the Left in the media. Hell, they don't even get credit for the REAL stuff that they do. Unless it's mis- or dis-, there is no lying going on. Nothing on purpose.

To say that there is is to once again FAIL TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS. A lot of info is coming from the front lines -- our troops are part of a mass coverup!!!!!! They KNOW about the oil thing and the atrocities and they're IN ON IT.

Consider for a moment the reputation effect that a lying media would have to deal with, and you may see how patently ridiculous it is to suppose that the media is lying to us.

I realize that many of you don't seem to understand our system here in the US (even those IN the US don't seem to get it -- a pity). Here, you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. You can't lie, though, because the most important thing that you have in this type of system is your reputation. People go to great lengths, every day, to preserve and enhance their reputations in the free market system. Lying is a good way to waste all that time and effort, and sometimes the blow to reputation is permanent (although Gerry Rivers seems to keep defying the odds). Anyhow, you ARE your rep., and that helps stop lying.

#37 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:37

Quote:

er...I found your point a bit confusing...by the end you seemed to be saying there's no way the liberal media would lie to us, which is a good thing for a right wing person to finally admit, but I wonder if that was indeed your intent.

FWIW, I distrust ALL governments at least a little bit, because they are all about power, and knowledge, especially in a war situation where it cannot be easily confirmed, where what you say and how you phrase it can be seen as either boosting or deflating moral or support from the folks back home, where revealing too much can compromise the operation.....I find it hard to believe that ANY govt. would be entirely and completely truthful, because there is no real strategic advantage in doing so, at least in the short term.

No offense, but I find your pollyanna-ish blank check acceptance of everything our government says, not only naive, but not historically cognizant nor consistent.

#38 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by finboy:
I think there is some "fog of war" stuff, revisions ex post, etc. But I don't think there is any intentional lying that we'll never see corrected (some occassional, temporary disinformation is expected).

If the administration was lying or encouraging lies, they'd be taken out and nailed crosses, one by one, by the Left in the media. Hell, they don't even get credit for the REAL stuff that they do. Unless it's mis- or dis-, there is no lying going on. Nothing on purpose.

To say that there is is to once again FAIL TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS. A lot of info is coming from the front lines -- our troops are part of a mass coverup!!!!!! They KNOW about the oil thing and the atrocities and they're IN ON IT.

Consider for a moment the reputation effect that a lying media would have to deal with, and you may see how patently ridiculous it is to suppose that the media is lying to us.

I realize that many of you don't seem to understand our system here in the US (even those IN the US don't seem to get it -- a pity). Here, you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. You can't lie, though, because the most important thing that you have in this type of system is your reputation. People go to great lengths, every day, to preserve and enhance their reputations in the free market system. Lying is a good way to waste all that time and effort, and sometimes the blow to reputation is permanent (although Gerry Rivers seems to keep defying the odds). Anyhow, you ARE your rep., and that helps stop lying.

No, no. Don't get me wrong. I don't think they are telling whoppers and expecting us to swallow them. I think that some of the dis-information may be part of the psych-ops stuff. Saying publicly that we have secured a city like Um Qasur only to find out later that we don't quite have it in hand is the stuff I'm talking about. It certainly helps us on the psychological front because it a) adds to the morale of our troops while b) demoralizing the opposition troops. That could easily save a few lives on both sides. Report of a quick victory (even if unconfirmed) is exactly the kind of thing the pentagon would want out there.

#39 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 15:38

whoa that guy just came on and gave another announcement and said that saddam was actually Allah! i think someone is putting stuff in his coffee

#40 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
by far the funniest thing i have heard him say is that "the US troops are at the gates of baghdad and they are committing suicide"

I guess they moved the gates of Baghdad.

#41 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 16:05

We'd better hurry up and surrender, those swords look sharp!!

#42 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 17:26

#43 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by daimoni:
I love it how the Iraqi Information Minister uses the words "baseless", "unfounded" and "without merit" all the time.

I'm just waiting for him to use the term "kneejerk".

Or "liberal media."

#44 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by mo:
Or "liberal media."

#45 Tue, 8 Apr 2003 - 13:14

Here's an interesting piece from CNN:

Quote:

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, face of Iraqi government

Sahaf: Scorned by western media but a hero to some Arabs

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- A black military beret on his head, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has become the face and voice of Iraqi defiance.

Iraq's information minister seems completely undaunted by U.S. and British advances, and often as not flatly denies what viewers around the world can see on their TV screens. ('Iraq still controls airport')

Even as U.S. troops roamed through a presidential complex in the heart of Baghdad on Monday and as tanks rumbled down streets a few hundred meters away, Sahaf was confidently boasting to the world the invaders would be slaughtered.

"The infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad," he told reporters gathered on the roof of the ministry of information. "As our leader Saddam Hussein said, 'God is grilling their stomachs in hell.'" (Sahaf: U.S. troops will be burnt)

Sahaf, 63, who kept a low profile before the war, has become an unlikely media star and a hero to many in the Arab world, at the same time as Western audiences gasp at his bravado.

While Iraqi troops fight in the field, the former foreign minister has dug deep into the lexicon of Arabic insults for verbal salvoes to lob at the "evil invaders."

He branded the British and U.S. leaders "an international gang of criminal bastards," "blood-sucking bastards," ignorant imperialists, losers and fools.

He calls the U.S. and British forces flocks of sheep doomed to die in Iraq or likens them to a snake slithering through the desert that will be chopped into pieces.

Sahaf often leaves foreign reporters astonished at his version of events, but roundly dismisses U.S. and British reports of the war as lies and "illusions."

In the Arab world, Sahaf escapes the mockery his utterances evoke in Western newspapers.

"I believe Sahaf exaggerates a little, but he needs to do that to reassure his people," said Hazem, a 25-year-old security guard in Cairo. "Of course he knows that he is talking to the American soldiers as well, so his words are part of the psychological war that's going on."

Abdul-Aziz, a Saudi writer who would not give his last name, said: "Sahaf is vulgar but he is a brave liar... If the rest of the Iraqi government or army were this brave, they would inflict many more losses on U.S. and British forces."

The view is different in the United States and Britain.

"With regard to the information coming out of Baghdad, spin is all very well and to be expected but it has to keep links with reality," said Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold, director of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank.

Sahaf was Iraq's foreign minister for almost a decade and ambassador to India, Italy and the United Nations.

Although on good terms with Saddam, and a member of his Baath party, there is no love lost between him and the president's son, Uday.

Saddam removed Sahaf as foreign minister in April 2001 and put him in charge of the Information Ministry after Uday's newspaper criticized him.

Publication of Uday's newspaper was suspended for several weeks after Sahaf took up his new job.