 |
| |
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
All true. But Sadr's was closed down because he's a trouble maker. Embeeded reporters are there for their own safety...a soldier and Marine is not going to put a lot of thought into it if some jackass peeps out a window with some big and black looking a block away. The Number of Journalists dead...I'm sure you know how confusing urban warfare is. Al-jeezera is group that passively supports terrorists. |
LOL!
Define "Troublemaker", is that anybody who doesn't buckle down and Obey the New Ruler?
"The press is controlled for it's own safety." Yup, sounds like the kind of statement anti-democrats come out with alot.
"Al-jeezera is group that passively supports terrorists. " This, I can't even compute. I suspect that it would be considered too mindlessly glib even for the tastes of your average government operatnik invited on to the National State News Services to critisize some foreign media organization that has been deemed unfriendly.
Last edited by problem_child on 04-12-2004 at 14:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
LOL!
Define "Troublemaker", is that anybody who doesn't buckle down and Obey the New Ruler?
|
I would say a group that arms it's members and gives them a carte blanche to attack Coalition qualifies.
quote:
"The press is controlled for it's own safety." Yup, sounds like the kind of statement anti-democrats come out with alot.
|
Well, Every.Single. Journalist killed in this war was not an embedded reporter. And it was an embedded reporter who got that Marine-capping a dude tape out, which seems to me a total LACK of control of the press on the American side.
Certainly, this has led me to conclude that US Military censors barely glance at the tapes in question, and let the news crews put out what they feel is appropriate.
quote:
"Al-jeezera is group that passively supports terrorists. " This, I can't even compute. I suspect that it would be considered too mindlessly glib even for the tastes of your average government operatnik invited on to the National State News Services to critisize some foreign media organization that has been deemed unfriendly. |
Or it could be the AJ crews that hang around at bomb sites before they happen, and not tell anyone. Or maybe their completer williness to show tapes of Americans screwing up, but the fact they won't show tapes of the Insurgents beheading hostages. Why is that? It couldn't be because they want to stir up anti-American sentiment, could it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
All good points.
NOT!
sorry, couldn't resist
quote:
I would say a group that arms it's members and gives them a carte blanche to attack Coalition qualifies. |
I agree. Good thing Sadr didn't necessarily have to 'arm his followers' (guns are as awash in Iraq as they are in the US). Good thing Sadr also instructed his followers to obey cease fires (later broken by forces that didn't want Sadr's brigades sitting around, peacefully weilding political power, what with the elections due and everything). I could be wrong, the main point is that your statement is unsubstantiated.
quote:
Well, Every.Single. Journalist killed in this war was not an embedded reporter. And it was an embedded reporter who got that Marine-capping a dude tape out, which seems to me a total LACK of control of the press on the American side. |
Some pretty suspicious killings of journalists by American forces exclusively (just like back in Yugo eh?). Seems the US army has a thing against journalists they don't control running around reporting stuff. As for the reporter that took that reasonably defensible picture of an American soldier executing an injured Iraqi fighter... please, don't litter the debate with your straw men. Same goes to the American military censors.
quote:
Certainly, this has led me to conclude that US Military censors barely glance at the tapes in question, and let the news crews put out what they feel is appropriate.
|
Job done then.
quote:
Or it could be the AJ crews that hang around at bomb sites before they happen, and not tell anyone. Or maybe their completer williness to show tapes of Americans screwing up, but the fact they won't show tapes of the Insurgents beheading hostages. Why is that? It couldn't be because they want to stir up anti-American sentiment, could it? |
Who told you AJs people were hanging around bomb-sites before the bombs happened, the Pentagon?  As far as them not showing 'Insurgents' beheading people (clever linking of all America opposing fighters in Iraq with terrorism by the way), it could just be taste and decency. I've watched one of them things and I regret it, they're pretty hard to take. Does CNN broadcaste the beheadings?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
I agree. Good thing Sadr didn't necessarily have to 'arm his followers' (guns are as awash in Iraq as they are in the US). Good thing Sadr also instructed his followers to obey cease fires (later broken by forces that didn't want Sadr's brigades sitting around, peacefully weilding political power, what with the elections due and everything). I could be wrong, the main point is that your statement is unsubstantiated.
|
For small arms, maybe not. But Sadr did control cities and harras provisional government employees. He did move into that Mosque in Karbala specifically to force the US to act. He was a troublemaker.
quote:
Some pretty suspicious killings of journalists by American forces exclusively (just like back in Yugo eh?). Seems the US army has a thing against journalists they don't control running around reporting stuff. |
Or they're fighting in urban combat with the "shoot at anyone who hefts something large and black at you." ROE. Happened in other wars.
quote:
As for the reporter that took that reasonably defensible picture of an American soldier executing an injured Iraqi fighter... please, don't litter the debate with your straw men. Same goes to the American military censors.
|
But it's relevent. You're implying that the American military is trying to control the news. We're spinning, there's a difference.
quote:
Who told you AJs people were hanging around bomb-sites before the bombs happened, the Pentagon?
|
I observed it myself, you Jackass. My entire job in the Navy is to collect signals. A good way to guesstimate where insurgents are going to bomb next is to track AJ crew's comms.
quote:
As far as them not showing 'Insurgents' beheading people (clever linking of all America opposing fighters in Iraq with terrorism by the way), it could just be taste and decency. I've watched one of them things and I regret it, they're pretty hard to take. Does CNN broadcaste the beheadings? |
CNN broadcasts some of it. But, unlike CNN, AJ doesn't even mention it. Also, AJ is more than willing to show graphic tapes of injured Iraqis and Coalition soldiers getting capped, but not hostages being beheaded. How is running a tape of an american soldier getting his lower jaw blown off somehow yes disgusting than the beheading of civilian aid workers? It isn't, trust me. The difference is that AJ is playing to the market, and doing what it can to undermine the process in Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
There's no need to start throwing personal insults around fella, it's unessesary and uncivilised. If civilian journalists get a lead, they have a right to follow it up. You can't ban em for reporting the things they have information on. I think it's more worthwhile to criticize em for not warning people when they have information about an attack.
|
In the states, if you know a murder is about to happen and you don't tell the Cops about it, that makes you an accessory to murder, how is this different?
quote:
Banning AJ from the area isn't productive, it serves no purpose but those of the Generals and their psyops units. |
The whole point of Banning AJ out was punishment for not telling the authorities when they got tips on bombs. After the 6th or 7th time of this happening, and their continue refusal to help out, (Bear in mind, these car bombs kill a lot of Iraqi noncombatents too) We and the acting Iraq government kicked their ass to the curb. They were (and are) accessoryies to murder. What should we do, pat them on the head and tell them what good boys they are?
quote:
In other words, it's mere control of the media, or propaganda by omission. |
Spin, actually. AJ is pretty much the only news agency to get kicked out of Iraq. Networks like al-Arabiya are still there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I have two friends/acquintances who've been to iran in recent years. One said he was told they wanted Bush reelected, so hed invade!!!! The other, who seemed to have spoken with a broader range of Iranians, said that unemployment was high, and with it hatred for the Mullahs. One cabbie pointed to some high tower of some kind at the airport, and said "thats where we'll hang the mullahs"
A biased sample, the elite of North Teheran, supplemented by a cabbie looking for a tip? Maybe. But it fits in with alot ive seen about Iran elsewhere. Lots of them ( I cant say if its the majority) dont give a damn about our support for the Shah, most of them are too young to remember the Shah, theyre steamed at the Mullahs and ready for change, though theyre perhaps not steamed enough yet to take their chances with the regimes thugs. Alot of bombs falling on them would change that, but if we can play this right (which there is certainly adequate reason for pessimism about) we could see big changes there. |
LOTM,
Don't compare the Iran of today to the fantasy government that we the U.S. government would set up if we had our way in Iran. Compare it to the actual government we supported before the Iranians rebelled.
I believe that every person/nation has the right to self determination. If the iranians don't like the government that rules them then it is there responsibility to rebel against the system not wait for someone to do it for them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2004 12:57
) revolt to overthrow the regime.
|