 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
"[What's the point in claiming something if you're not going to back it up?]" |
I know that you're just being an ass, but I'll do it anyway. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1250526,00.html
quote:
You said, "We wanted Allawi. And we pressured Brahimi into going along with it." So your "addendum" claim does not supersede the "orignial" claim? |
We did want Allawi. There's no doubt about that. After Chalabi fell through, he was the administration's favorite. The CIA (he was their boy after all), State love him, etc. |
State is said to have loved Pachachi, and that didnt work out, the post went to Yawer who had the support of no US agency, AFAIK.
Yes Allawi has CIA support, but I see no evidence (other than the circular evidence that Allawi had CIA support) that CIA, rather than State or DoD was driving US policy in Iraq at the time. as far as i can tell Allawi had been politicing the IGC rather astutely for some time, and was a genuice IGC pick.
As for the Herch article, I dont trust Hersh or his anonymous sources, and Cannistaro has taken a stance fairly consistently opposed to the intervention in Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
Zeyad of Healingiraq:
"That was Al-Jazeera's description of the action of the Iraqi government after their office in Baghdad was closed recently. They organised a sit-in complete with banners and placards in which reporters from several Arab stations participated outside the office. The only Iraqis that condemned this act of 'censorship' was the haiy'at ulemma almuslimeen (Association of Muslim Scholars). Other parties from the Arab world that condemned the ban were Hamas, the Union of Egyptian Journalists, and The Association of Islamic Media (which I have not heard of before).
What made me smile was Al-Jazeera's request to the Iraqi government for an offical explanation. I don't recall Al-Jazeera asking Saddam's regime for an explanation why they were not allowed to operate in Iraq in his time, nor do I recall any such requests to Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Algiers, or Sudan, since all of these countries have banned Al-Jazeera from reporting within their borders, while other Arab countries place close restrictions on their movement or only allow them to parrot official state-sponsored local news.
Having said that, I do blame the Iraqi government for such an irresponsible act. What were they thinking? They should have kicked out every last one of their crew outside the border, not to allow them to stage pathetic demonstrations inside. Though it is ironic that the same 'free speech' in Iraq that Al-Jazeera is lamenting is allowing them that.
I don't see anything changing though. They continue to spit out their vile news and commentary and they continue to display tapes and messages from kidnappers on every news hour. Yesterday, for example, there was a video with hooded Mahdi militiamen who had taken an Iraqi police officer as hostage, and it seems that their offices elsewhere in Iraq are still operating regardless of the ban."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:34
|
|
Has anyone seen Outfoxed? It's a documentary about Fox News. If you think Fahrenheit is kind of tough stuff, it ain't nothing compared to this one. Except that this really is documentary where as Fahrenheit really isnt' a documentary and has a political agenda and other agendas, and kind of propaganda. But still, it's a lot lighter than Outfoxed.
If you're American and watch Fox, you should see this. In fact, they shouldn't even call it Fox News, they shouldn't be able to deliver News, because it's also propaganda. It's sick. Most know this alreadyt, but see Outfoxed. You should get outraged. Naturally, I give it 2% doubt because it also has an agenda, to make Fox look bad. But that's just because I give that doubt to every documentary by default, and I'm about 98% sure it's pure **** the whole news network. Frankly, I do not even understand why this is condoned in the bastion of freedom.
You say conservative news, I say propaganda. What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway. Conservative news, doesn't that mean news that are not exactly 100% balanced and fair? And that being so, it's not reall news thne, and since they claim to be news, it's nothing but propaganda. Doesn't mean if 2% of the news is actually correct and unbiased.
You say there can't be unbiased news. Yes there can be. Come here, we can teach you. Watch our news. Sure, they're a bit boring, but you don't hear opinions blending into FACTS, the REAL news. It's funny when I watch different channels, I watch our channels and then I see the same news in let's say CNN. It's a bit different on CNN, because they do it with more time. I don't mean it's better, where as we simply state the facts, and maybe interview few experts or locals on what ever the issue is, CNN has more talking about it, maybe opinions too. It's a bit different, however it's not too bad. CNN is pretty decent. When I was in the US and switched to FOX, it was so horrible my head hurted. I've never seen that kind of 'news'.
Al Jazeera sure is suspicious, and though claimed to be independent and very well might be, it sure is suspicious and biased. But I assure you, go see Outfoxed and get outraged. That's why I said in the beginning that I don't mind Al Jazeera being shut down, and that they should shut down Fox News too. Why do you condone propaganda on yourself and demand other ones propaganda shut down?
Outfoxed, go see it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:34
|
|
That's not the point. Why do you, as a free country, allow this to happen to yourselves? I'm not portraying conservatism as a curse word. Hey, I might be conservative myself. I know this thread is about Al Jazeera. But Fox News is the same, or WORSE than Al Jazeera. At least you know when you're watching propaganda when you tune into Al Jazeera. But many people don't know they're watching _outrageous_ propaganda watching Fox News.
That's the beauty of it, and that makes it powerful. Because many people don't realize they are not watching news that rely on proper journalism. And because it isn't doing it properly, it is not news. And because it is intented to do so on purpose, it is propaganda.
Exactly where do you see propaganda news have space in democracy? If they really want to have their show, then they should be forced to put couple of hundred disclaimers and change their name to entertainment.
People are making their judgements, many people are forming their view of the world by this. And it's nothing but propaganda! Yes, Iraq is free to close down Al Jazeera. It's their decision. But my question is, why do you allow propaganda poison your minds? Why?
It is as if it's not taken seriously. You're treating this like it's not a big deal. You have to read my lips again: it's propaganda. How the hell is that not a big deal in democracy? Democracy doesn't mean anything goes. Fox News is ANTI-democracy and ANTI-American as far as I'm concerned, because it is nothing but propaganda.
Why would you even defend it? Because it might not be propaganda? It is, if you don't take my word for it, then watch the documentary, or come and watch real news and how they are done.
The thing is, when I watched Fox News, and felt it was disgusting way of doing news, is because I hadn't seen anything like it before. So I could immidiately tell the differencies, and quickly determine them as means of propaganda. The documentary basically just told the same story again, and had very few new things to bring to my attention what I didn't already see myself.
If you had to, how would you justify propaganda in democracy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
They have first hand knowledge of the situation on the ground. |
No. They are a bull**** government established by an illegal invader, whose people don't want them, and who can't stand the fact that a news organization is making them look bad. And they conveniently ban the only station that gives decent coverage of the fighting right before they begin the massacre of Sadr's followers in Najaf.
How bloody stupid do you think people are? It's patently obvious what they are doing and why they are doing it now.
Who to trust? Government that is the agent of an illegal occupying power, headed by a thug; or the only news organization that actually gives decent reports on the crap going down in Iraq?
Last edited by Agathon on 12-08-2004 at 13:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Ain't that the truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Basically what you have is the typical, classic distortion of definitions. Small examples.
We are here to liberate you: We are here to impose our stooges and rob you of your oil
We bring democracy: we bring our own government which will satisfy our needs
You have an Iraqi governemt: you have our stooges
We ban TV stations because they are terrorist: we ban them because we don't want you to get influenced by what they say
We are liberators: we are oppressors
We are fighting terrorists: we are fighting several resistance movements
We respect human rights: we'll do the worse to serve our interests as long as it doesn't have to much chance to back fire
We respect freedom of press: your whole media is controlled both financially and on the personel level by us
Terrorists don't want peace in Iraq: resistance is fighting to throw off the yoke of an imposed US goverment
Oil exploration will benefit Iraq: Oil exploration will benefit american companies
etc etc ad nauseum
it's twisted terminology orwellian style.
Of course noone buys it except some blind people. Unfortunately most of them are american but they have their media to be blamed and themselves for either not getting informed or accepting it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Yep that would indeed be beneficial especially in times where the most ruthless combined with incapable leaders are on their helm. This leads to the suffering of many people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Although one can't say the american press is "unfree" in the conventional sense. The slavery of it is much more subtle and can be found in the unhealthy combination of press with other major corporations/interests (happens in many other countries) and in its severe lack of pluralism meaning only a handful of companies coltrolling most media (mainly american phenomenon).
However I used to envy its tradition in investigating journalism. Wether this goes on or has it become impossible, I don't know.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2004 02:13
|