Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[ual777 0]

Yabasta, you posted an article from a BLOG site. A CONSPIRACY blog site at that. Therefore it is UNRELIABLE, when every other news site I looked at, including arab ones, said differenty.

The links on that blog site were mainstream media. The fact that you dismissed the page it was from(just a googled page to introduce the case to you) simply because it was a blog site shows your bias against blog sites as news. Mainstream media is more trusted by people but mainstream media is also much more controlled. If you are going to attack the source rather than the content then you have no argument.

If you know so much about special operations and black ops etc then surely you appreciate that such operations go on.

Further, I will say this one more time, SAYING THAT THE COALITION IS BEHIND THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IS BASELESS AND ILLOGICAL! I have shown that 'article' you posted was wrong, and yet you still carry on about it.

You have not shown anything to say the article was wrong other than your view of the source. Attacking the source as i said is weak and baseless not the article which has both base and logic that i sobvious to anybody that understands warfare.

Continuing, Marines do not purposly murder civilians (in general), and the ones that do get punished. That is the HUGE difference between our military and the insurgents, as I posted about 20 pages ago.

You provide no credible evidence to support your wild claim. How can you launch a missile or a bomb in a city without killing civillians?

Finally, I don't get your whole 'game' comment, but when I post a number or a little-known fact, I post a reliable source.

My game comment was a response to your game comment. Your treatment of the situation is casual and juvenile. You treat me with zero respect and act as if you are somehow superior. This is a weakness in you.

I found the contents of that link SO off-base and moronic, I felt the need to sit on a tarp in the back yard in case my head exploded...

Which actually makes you sound moronic but to each his own.

THAT is why I said thanks for playing. The thing I'm not getting Yabasta is that you CONTINAULY question me about what I know in the military,

I questioned you once from what i recall, twice tops. hardly continually. My point was that you seem to show no understanding of such operations. Operations which incidentally have been declassified etc.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW? Because so far, it appears that you are a conspiracy theorist with no real solution, no evidence, and just flame-baiting. Please prove me wrong.

How very original. Name calling shock. I shall simply tell you this. History is distorted by those who control history. If you read about events of the past you will learn that new information comes out and different perspectives do exist. You can learn that World War 1 started due to the death of one man which is simply not believable to any sensible person. You can learn of coporate control of mainstream media and government censorship and even going so far as paying for news articles to be written for them.

How is it flame baiting to simply offer you a different angle? You can`t claim to know anything unless you have explored all angles.

Attacking my credibility by calling me a conspiracy theorist is very lame and sadly common amongst people who simply won`t debate with me fairly. You attack my character and then ridicule me and claim that i was the one antagonising.

How can i porve you wrong when you do not accept the source? I can`t make a "trusted media outlet" cover the real news. I can`t stop journalists taking the soft embed option.

You have offered no other explanation for 2 SAS men to be there. What were they doing if not acting covertly?

As far as the British 'insurgents' go, its a bunch of #######. They were checking on reports of torture by Iraqi police. If they were blowing up Iraqis, Al-Jazeera would be all over it. Further, apparently they did exchange fire with plain clothes Iraqi police officers. Perhaps the Brits thought they were insurgents or vice versa. The thing is, in warfare, which I FULLY understand, thing become extremely chaotic and confused. Things do not go to plan, and things change without warning, especially in a volitile country like Iraq.

Further, I wasn't name calling. I was calling it like I see it. You ARE being a conspiracy theorist, and if debating with reason and reliable evidence is not 'fair' then I guess im not fair. I won't accept the source because it is obviously a conspiracy blog. Further, blogs such as the one you presented are OPINION pieces. I even clicked the picture link they said was from Yahoo, and it didn't match.

I also presented 2 other news sources, one of them being Arabic, and you ignored them.

You also said "you provide no evidence to support your wild claim. How can you launch a missle or a bomb in a city without killing civilians." Perhaps if you read more closely, I said do not PURPOSFULLY kill civilians, wheras terrorists deliberatly target them. I also provided statistics on causes of civilian deaths in Iraq and the insurgency is killing civilians at a rate of 40:1 to 90:1 vs. the coalition (it varies per month.)

I think the funniest part is, is that I DO treat you with respect and I just said that you are a conspiracy theorist, which judging by your remarks and news posting, you are.

You then accuse me of 'not debating fairly, showing you no respect, attacking your character, etc etc.'

I never did any of this.

Finally, with your remark that it the article makes sense to 'anyone that understands warfare'.....

Trust me, I understand warfare better than 95%+ of people on this board. History, strategy, tactics, street fighting, recon., all of that stuff. This is exactly why the article is SO illogical. For a special ops unit to attack their own soldiers and undermine the war effort makes NO sense, and I can assure you someone would find out, because things that heinous do not stay secret. There would be an influx of suicides among spec. ops. soldiers over killing their own countrymen.

I do not even know why I am delving into this as I am typing because it is SO rediculous. Show me a reliable news source and I will consider change my opinion.

This is like the same ####### that says the government executed 9/11. I doubt that because I am also a pilot.

I don't agree with Slim here, I imagine they (the insurgents) justify it from the perspective anyone who helps with the reconstruction effort is profiting from the war (which of course they are) and the human misery that it created. Its a simplification I think to suggest that the various insurgent groups don't have their own agenda here, quite apart from fighting foreign invaders on sovereign soil.

i'm getting worried now. i can't find anything to disagree with in that above. keep it up fishdude, and we'll have to take away your dnc card.

Like many people, I'm not a stereotype

I do like how he does think Charles. I think Fishdude is my favorite leftie on this thread. Fishdude I deem you an "independant Liberal", because you are at least rational.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not a liberal or a leftist. I have certain tendencies that way on some issues, but as I've said before I don't see either of those positions to be a particularly desirable state of society.

[dalegg 143]

But I have to ask again why is this important when there have been dozens of beheadings that have been caught on film? You can't deny that this has happened. People have been abducted, murdered and decapitated (not necessarily in that order). I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Because Nicholas Berg's father Michael was (and still is) an outspoken public anti-war/anti-Bush activist. The theory is that this film was made by psyops agents while Berg was being detained for questioning by FBI agents just a few weeks before the beheadings.

Showing that the son of an anti-war activist is just as likely to be treated this way as anyone else might bolster more support against the insurgency and serve to prove that terrorists don't care whether or not Americans are for or against the war, just that they want them all dead. Strikes an additional element of fear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But I have to ask again why is this important when there have been dozens of beheadings that have been caught on film? You can't deny that this has happened. People have been abducted, murdered and decapitated (not necessarily in that order). I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Because Nicholas Berg's father Michael was (and still is) an outspoken public anti-war/anti-Bush activist. The theory is that this film was made by psyops agents while Berg was being detained for questioning by FBI agents just a few weeks before the beheadings.

Showing that the son of an anti-war activist is just as likely to be treated this way as anyone else might bolster more support against the insurgency and serve to prove that terrorists don't care whether or not Americans are for or against the war, just that they want them all dead. Strikes an additional element of fear.

Sounds like a good movie plot at least.

That also assumes that general public are somewhat stupid. I think most people are aware that a westerner going to the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan is fair game where these people are concerned. They're not interested in your beliefs or political persuasion so much as the color of your skin.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[dalegg 143]

But I have to ask again why is this important when there have been dozens of beheadings that have been caught on film? You can't deny that this has happened. People have been abducted, murdered and decapitated (not necessarily in that order). I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Because Nicholas Berg's father Michael was (and still is) an outspoken public anti-war/anti-Bush activist. The theory is that this film was made by psyops agents while Berg was being detained for questioning by FBI agents just a few weeks before the beheadings.

Showing that the son of an anti-war activist is just as likely to be treated this way as anyone else might bolster more support against the insurgency and serve to prove that terrorists don't care whether or not Americans are for or against the war, just that they want them all dead. Strikes an additional element of fear.

Sounds like a good movie plot at least.

That also assumes that general public are somewhat stupid. I think most people are aware that a westerner going to the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan is fair game where these people are concerned. They're not interested in your beliefs or political persuasion so much as the color of your skin.

Yeah, and besides that scaring civilians away from Iraq while we were trying to recruit contractors to rebuild would seem counter to our goals there. I need to go back to the drawing board.

[yabasta 0]

As far as the British 'insurgents' go, its a bunch of #######. They were checking on reports of torture by Iraqi police. If they were blowing up Iraqis, Al-Jazeera would be all over it. Further, apparently they did exchange fire with plain clothes Iraqi police officers. Perhaps the Brits thought they were insurgents or vice versa. The thing is, in warfare, which I FULLY understand, thing become extremely chaotic and confused. Things do not go to plan, and things change without warning, especially in a volitile country like Iraq.

You state "it is a bunch of #######" . This is no argument against something and is not really the kind of argument that will ever convince me that you have the truth. You then go on to state quite matter of factly what really happened. The trouble is of course that you were not there and so can not say for sure. I was not there either so i can not say for certain either but if you read the news article it seems somewhat suspect to say the least. You do not explain the bomb equipment which is pictured on that blog page and was sourced from Reuters as i have stated before. This evidence is quite damning because why would they require bomb equipment if they were checking on Iraqi police and why would they be undercover if they were checking on reports of torture?

It is also blatantly obvious from the masses of torture reports(videos and photos aswell as testimony) that the military forces in Iraq do not care if insurgents are tortured. It is quite obviously ordered by the superiors there and it would not suprise me if it came from the very top. Anybody who believes that all these soldiers are in fact just disobeying orders seem rather naeve to me.

I am aware that things don`t go to plan which is why covert ops sometimes mess up in the same way that regular ops do. You can keep banging on about your background but you seem to be using it as a qualification yet ignoring things you must have learned if you know about covert operations and such things.

Further, I wasn't name calling. I was calling it like I see it. You ARE being a conspiracy theorist, and if debating with reason and reliable evidence is not 'fair' then I guess im not fair. I won't accept the source because it is obviously a conspiracy blog. Further, blogs such as the one you presented are OPINION pieces. I even clicked the picture link they said was from Yahoo, and it didn't match.

I also presented 2 other news sources, one of them being Arabic, and you ignored them.

Well calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is name calling. I am used to it but it is very weak as an argument against information i provide. You might say hey there has been no court case to prove that those SAS men were up to no good but since they are above the law we will never know. They were arrested with bomb making equipment dressed as insurgents or civillians at best. You have no proof to say that they were not planting bombs and have not even provided a reasonable explanation.

How did i ignore your links? I can`t respond to everything posted all the time you know? but since you asked so nicely.

The first one clearly didn`t care to speculate and the second link reported a version of events that woul dof course support the SAS operation. Whilst the second explanation is possible it doesn`t really add up to me. The SAS are meant to be the elite and so it if their mission was to spy on a man then surely they would have a better plan and again why did they have explosives?

You also said "you provide no evidence to support your wild claim. How can you launch a missle or a bomb in a city without killing civilians." Perhaps if you read more closely, I said do not PURPOSFULLY kill civilians, wheras terrorists deliberatly target them. I also provided statistics on causes of civilian deaths in Iraq and the insurgency is killing civilians at a rate of 40:1 to 90:1 vs. the coalition (it varies per month.)

Firstly figure provided by an invading army should be taken with a bag of salt. Not sure where your figures are from though but i still take your figures with a pinch of salt. Secondly the insurgency is clearly being discredited if the news story in question is what it appears to be. Even if it isn`t i would point out to you that if you drop a bomb or launch a missile on a civillian area you must expect to kill some civillians. Therefore you are purposely not caring about those civillians. You must also factor in that the insurgency would i imagine have less resources. Many of the bombs etc in Iraq are hard to pin on people a bomb planted in a car could easily be described as a suicide bomber yet the poor guy driving might not have known anything about it. Therefore figures on such things are redundant in my view.

I think the funniest part is, is that I DO treat you with respect and I just said that you are a conspiracy theorist, which judging by your remarks and news posting, you are.

You then accuse me of 'not debating fairly, showing you no respect, attacking your character, etc etc.'

I never did any of this.

I think i covered this already but to call me a conspiracy theorist is a name. It has negative connotations. It implies i am a kook and that is unfair. It is therefore disrespectful. You want me to provide mainstream news links before you accept the possibility of something being true which means you think that those who work for mainstream media are not biased or on the payroll in some way. Mainstream media is edited and censored and steered. Much of the mainstream news is simply facts from the official source written up by the journalist. The official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It might be the one you believe but it is a theory as it is not proven. If i called you a conspiracy theorist though would you not be offended?

A fair debate would not include such negative tags in my view. Clearly we disagree and that is fine but the issue is more how you seem to be trying to shout me down. Sorry if this is a misconception but you have seemed to hammer the military point as if i as a non military man could not understand how such things work. I think this is unfair and whilst your knowledge in military affairs might be vast it would seem that you don`t accept my views as valid opinions in part due to my status as a civilian.

Finally, with your remark that it the article makes sense to 'anyone that understands warfare'.....

Trust me, I understand warfare better than 95%+ of people on this board. History, strategy, tactics, street fighting, recon., all of that stuff. This is exactly why the article is SO illogical. For a special ops unit to attack their own soldiers and undermine the war effort makes NO sense, and I can assure you someone would find out, because things that heinous do not stay secret. There would be an influx of suicides among spec. ops. soldiers over killing their own countrymen.

This is not about killing Americans or British troops, the victims are Iraqi civillians. The operation does not undermine the war effort. It would undermine the insurgency as has been stated by many pro army people on this site. Civillian deaths by insurgents have been used to brand the insurgency(those defending themselves from invasion) as evil and brutal men. As i am sure you know, with your huge understanding, hearts and minds is where wars are really fought and peace will not come about until such a time that the people in Iraq see no reason to fight.

I do not even know why I am delving into this as I am typing because it is SO rediculous. Show me a reliable news source and I will consider change my opinion.

This again makes it seem like you only believe things when they are printed and only then when they are printed on a particular place. Whilst it is true that you can`t accept things written or typed as fact just because they are written or typed it is equally applicable to the words typed by mainstream "reliable" news media. It is also possible and probable that much news never even makes it to the "conspiracy sites". Personally i think an open mind is always called for. That means being the way that you are with yur "trusted" sources.

This is like the same ####### that says the government executed 9/11. I doubt that because I am also a pilot.

You doubt 9/11 was a government operation because you can fly a plane? Sorry you lost me.

I will provide you some news links but i don`t expect you to accept them as "reliable". I predict your responses will be "socialist news site" and things of that nature. I have not had time to read this articles through 100% but they seem to lean in my direction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4263648.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=15936 or http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...4&articleId=992

related

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=16006

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s28.shtml

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...5&articleId=994

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0365.html

Edited June 19, 2006 by yabasta

[ual777 0]

As far as the British 'insurgents' go, its a bunch of #######. They were checking on reports of torture by Iraqi police. If they were blowing up Iraqis, Al-Jazeera would be all over it. Further, apparently they did exchange fire with plain clothes Iraqi police officers. Perhaps the Brits thought they were insurgents or vice versa. The thing is, in warfare, which I FULLY understand, thing become extremely chaotic and confused. Things do not go to plan, and things change without warning, especially in a volitile country like Iraq.

You state "it is a bunch of #######" . This is no argument against something and is not really the kind of argument that will ever convince me that you have the truth. You then go on to state quite matter of factly what really happened. The trouble is of course that you were not there and so can not say for sure. I was not there either so i can not say for certain either but if you read the news article it seems somewhat suspect to say the least. You do not explain the bomb equipment which is pictured on that blog page and was sourced from Reuters as i have stated before. This evidence is quite damning because why would they require bomb equipment if they were checking on Iraqi police and why would they be undercover if they were checking on reports of torture?

It is also blatantly obvious from the masses of torture reports(videos and photos aswell as testimony) that the military forces in Iraq do not care if insurgents are tortured. It is quite obviously ordered by the superiors there and it would not suprise me if it came from the very top. Anybody who believes that all these soldiers are in fact just disobeying orders seem rather naeve to me.

I am aware that things don`t go to plan which is why covert ops sometimes mess up in the same way that regular ops do. You can keep banging on about your background but you seem to be using it as a qualification yet ignoring things you must have learned if you know about covert operations and such things.

Further, I wasn't name calling. I was calling it like I see it. You ARE being a conspiracy theorist, and if debating with reason and reliable evidence is not 'fair' then I guess im not fair. I won't accept the source because it is obviously a conspiracy blog. Further, blogs such as the one you presented are OPINION pieces. I even clicked the picture link they said was from Yahoo, and it didn't match.

I also presented 2 other news sources, one of them being Arabic, and you ignored them.

Well calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is name calling. I am used to it but it is very weak as an argument against information i provide. You might say hey there has been no court case to prove that those SAS men were up to no good but since they are above the law we will never know. They were arrested with bomb making equipment dressed as insurgents or civillians at best. You have no proof to say that they were not planting bombs and have not even provided a reasonable explanation.

How did i ignore your links? I can`t respond to everything posted all the time you know? but since you asked so nicely.

The first one clearly didn`t care to speculate and the second link reported a version of events that woul dof course support the SAS operation. Whilst the second explanation is possible it doesn`t really add up to me. The SAS are meant to be the elite and so it if their mission was to spy on a man then surely they would have a better plan and again why did they have explosives?

You also said "you provide no evidence to support your wild claim. How can you launch a missle or a bomb in a city without killing civilians." Perhaps if you read more closely, I said do not PURPOSFULLY kill civilians, wheras terrorists deliberatly target them. I also provided statistics on causes of civilian deaths in Iraq and the insurgency is killing civilians at a rate of 40:1 to 90:1 vs. the coalition (it varies per month.)

Firstly figure provided by an invading army should be taken with a bag of salt. Not sure where your figures are from though but i still take your figures with a pinch of salt. Secondly the insurgency is clearly being discredited if the news story in question is what it appears to be. Even if it isn`t i would point out to you that if you drop a bomb or launch a missile on a civillian area you must expect to kill some civillians. Therefore you are purposely not caring about those civillians. You must also factor in that the insurgency would i imagine have less resources. Many of the bombs etc in Iraq are hard to pin on people a bomb planted in a car could easily be described as a suicide bomber yet the poor guy driving might not have known anything about it. Therefore figures on such things are redundant in my view.

I think the funniest part is, is that I DO treat you with respect and I just said that you are a conspiracy theorist, which judging by your remarks and news posting, you are.

You then accuse me of 'not debating fairly, showing you no respect, attacking your character, etc etc.'

I never did any of this.

I think i covered this already but to call me a conspiracy theorist is a name. It has negative connotations. It implies i am a kook and that is unfair. It is therefore disrespectful. You want me to provide mainstream news links before you accept the possibility of something being true which means you think that those who work for mainstream media are not biased or on the payroll in some way. Mainstream media is edited and censored and steered. Much of the mainstream news is simply facts from the official source written up by the journalist. The official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It might be the one you believe but it is a theory as it is not proven. If i called you a conspiracy theorist though would you not be offended?

A fair debate would not include such negative tags in my view. Clearly we disagree and that is fine but the issue is more how you seem to be trying to shout me down. Sorry if this is a misconception but you have seemed to hammer the military point as if i as a non military man could not understand how such things work. I think this is unfair and whilst your knowledge in military affairs might be vast it would seem that you don`t accept my views as valid opinions in part due to my status as a civilian.

Finally, with your remark that it the article makes sense to 'anyone that understands warfare'.....

Trust me, I understand warfare better than 95%+ of people on this board. History, strategy, tactics, street fighting, recon., all of that stuff. This is exactly why the article is SO illogical. For a special ops unit to attack their own soldiers and undermine the war effort makes NO sense, and I can assure you someone would find out, because things that heinous do not stay secret. There would be an influx of suicides among spec. ops. soldiers over killing their own countrymen.

This is not about killing Americans or British troops, the victims are Iraqi civillians. The operation does not undermine the war effort. It would undermine the insurgency as has been stated by many pro army people on this site. Civillian deaths by insurgents have been used to brand the insurgency(those defending themselves from invasion) as evil and brutal men. As i am sure you know, with your huge understanding, hearts and minds is where wars are really fought and peace will not come about until such a time that the people in Iraq see no reason to fight.

I do not even know why I am delving into this as I am typing because it is SO rediculous. Show me a reliable news source and I will consider change my opinion.

This again makes it seem like you only believe things when they are printed and only then when they are printed on a particular place. Whilst it is true that you can`t accept things written or typed as fact just because they are written or typed it is equally applicable to the words typed by mainstream "reliable" news media. It is also possible and probable that much news never even makes it to the "conspiracy sites". Personally i think an open mind is always called for. That means being the way that you are with yur "trusted" sources.

This is like the same ####### that says the government executed 9/11. I doubt that because I am also a pilot.

You doubt 9/11 was a government operation because you can fly a plane? Sorry you lost me.

I will provide you some news links but i don`t expect you to accept them as "reliable". I predict your responses will be "socialist news site" and things of that nature. I have not had time to read this articles through 100% but they seem to lean in my direction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4263648.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=15936 or http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...4&articleId=992

related

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=16006

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s28.shtml

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...5&articleId=994

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0365.html

Ok, I will start with the 'damning evidence' by identifying what I see in the picture with my military experience. Bear in mind, I cannot make the photo any bigger because the link is invalid.

In the top left corner there is a FAMAS assault rifle used by the british military. Moving down, I see a box with wire cutters (for barbed wire or fences) and associated tools. Next to that there are a bunch of radios, and to the right a radio reciever box (satillite?). To the top, I see what appears to be a LIGHT disposible anti-armor weapon. I cannot identify the contents of the bag at the bottom of the page, (spool of wire and reflector belts?) nor the grey box at the top, or the two bags to the right as they are closed. They are backpacks so I will venture a guess at survival gear.

I do not see anything that is conclusivly bomb making material (with the exception of hte heavy gauge wire which could also be used for the operation of the radios or reciever box.)

It seems suspect to the average person, yes. However, the articles say they got in a gunfight with PLAIN CLOTHES Iraqi police, which could have been mistaken for an insurgent militia checkpoint.

Furthermore, they are undercover searching for Iraqi police torture, because obviously the Iraqi police would try to cover it up.

I am not saying that your opinion is not valid. However, many people see any picture of military equipment and automatically believe that it is what it states. IF there was bomb-making equipment, it could have been used to sabotage a terrorist safe house, or vehicle. Even the BBC articles you posted noted that they are from a 'counter-insurgency' unit with experience in N. Ireland. Counter insurgency units often use guerrilla tactics to fight back.

I am not in anyway trying to 'shout you down.' I am pointing out that there are many PLAUSIBLE explinations for that equipment and its use.

Further, the first article stated "another was an anti-tank missle- which helps explain where the so-called 'Iraqi insurgents' have been getting their sophisticated weaponry from."

That is a very biased and mis-informed remark. In a country where almost every houshold has an AK-47, Russian RPGs are as common as camel spiders. They are powerful weapons, but my 12 year old brother could point one at the enemy. It is a point and shoot Rocket Propelled Grenade (hence RPG).

This ties into why I said reliable news source. A reliable news source does not print something so grossly mis-informed and ignorant, while at the same time providing a 'dead link' to the photo.

As for the conspiracy theorist remark, if I hurt your feelings, Im sorry. I was not implying you are 'kooky' or 'wierd'. However that page providing a conspiracy theory that you agreed with.

[yabasta 0]

This ties into why I said reliable news source. A reliable news source does not print something so grossly mis-informed and ignorant, while at the same time providing a 'dead link' to the photo.

As for the conspiracy theorist remark, if I hurt your feelings, Im sorry. I was not implying you are 'kooky' or 'wierd'. However that page providing a conspiracy theory that you agreed with.

If only that were true. "Reliable" news has been found guilty of many misinformed and ignorant views and statements etc. In order to learn the truth you have to seek the truth. It does not just jump out of your newspaper. As i mentioned salt is important with news. That means ALL news.

The conspiracy was what exactly? It isn`t really a cnspiracy is it? Just the SAS doing what they do. The control of the media by the state is common knowledge so i am nto sure where the conspiracy theory is here. Like i said your view is just as easy to question as my opinion of what happened. Neither of us can be sure simply because there is no perfect reliable source.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The control of the media by the state is common knowledge

Hmmm I don't think that's necessarily true. There are very many things wrong with the media, simply saying that the 'media is controlled by the government' is a gross simplification, which ignores not only the diversity and complexity of "the mass media" (which is a more accurate use of the term) but also how it functions and operates.

I don't think you can argue convincingly that the media in the US or UK for example, is anything at all similar say, to russian or chinese mass media, which actually are heavily censored and scrutinized by government agencies.

What's wrong with the media

Edited June 19, 2006 by Fishdude

[yabasta 0]

The control of the media by the state is common knowledge

Hmmm I don't think that's necessarily true. There are very many things wrong with the media, simply saying that the 'media is controlled by the government' is a gross simplification, which ignores not only the diversity and complexity of "the mass media" (which is a more accurate use of the term) but also how it functions and operates.

I don't think you can argue convincingly that the media in the US or UK for example, is anything at all similar say, to russian or chinese mass media, which actually are heavily censored and scrutinized by government agencies.

What's wrong with the media

It may be a bold statement for you to accept and perhaps i should have said heavily influenced instead. However when you look at who owns the companies and who owns the companies who advertise on the various news media and then you look at the government you see that they work together and play together and meet at their secret society gatherings together. This is not in itself proof of control but when you then read up on criticism of the news media and witness the stories from a critical perspective you see the control. It is not just the news either. The same people who own the news own the movies you go and see which is why United 93 was controversial for it`s trailer and not becuase it explored what really happened and just accepted the governement story.

The rise of the news or political analysis blog shows an indication that the mainstream news media is not doing something. The reason "conspiracy theories" are so popular right now is because people simply aren`t buying the official story. People don`t buy that Oswald shot Kennedy in the front of the head when he was behind him anymore. Despite these thigns the news will still state that Oswald shot Kennedy. They will mention conspiracy theories but the probably won`t give them any serious note. The point is that people demand real news, they want to know what really went down when 2 SAS men were arrested and two 500lb bombs failed to scratch Zarqawi. Sure with this you get people digging for things that might not be there. That is one of the methods there is suppress the truth in such situations. The misinformation is mixed with specualtion and somewhere in there is possibly a hint of the real truth. The mainstream media is no better because it for the most part says "government spokesmen say blah blah blah". That is not news that is propaganda.

Obviously journalism standards have slipped or maybe it just seems that way. There is more media nowadays. Everybody can set up shop. The sad thing is that some people accept what they read blindly and others refuse to accept anything. There are also those who only accept from certain sources even though mainstream media has more controls and censors.

The media is meant to be broad, and there is meant to be something for all. The United States has two and a bit political parties. The U.K. has three this is about as far as the media gets, an illusion of choice. Kerry and Bush are no different than CNN and Fox.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It may be a bold statement for you to accept and perhaps i should have said heavily influenced instead. However when you look at who owns the companies and who owns the companies who advertise on the various news media and then you look at the government you see that they work together and play together and meet at their secret society gatherings together. This is not in itself proof of control but when you then read up on criticism of the news media and witness the stories from a critical perspective you see the control. It is not just the news either. The same people who own the news own the movies you go and see which is why United 93 was controversial for it`s trailer and not becuase it explored what really happened and just accepted the governement story.

The rise of the news or political analysis blog shows an indication that the mainstream news media is not doing something. The reason "conspiracy theories" are so popular right now is because people simply aren`t buying the official story. People don`t buy that Oswald shot Kennedy in the front of the head when he was behind him anymore. Despite these thigns the news will still state that Oswald shot Kennedy. They will mention conspiracy theories but the probably won`t give them any serious note. The point is that people demand real news, they want to know what really went down when 2 SAS men were arrested and two 500lb bombs failed to scratch Zarqawi. Sure with this you get people digging for things that might not be there. That is one of the methods there is suppress the truth in such situations. The misinformation is mixed with specualtion and somewhere in there is possibly a hint of the real truth. The mainstream media is no better because it for the most part says "government spokesmen say blah blah blah". That is not news that is propaganda.

Obviously journalism standards have slipped or maybe it just seems that way. There is more media nowadays. Everybody can set up shop. The sad thing is that some people accept what they read blindly and others refuse to accept anything. There are also those who only accept from certain sources even though mainstream media has more controls and censors.

The media is meant to be broad, and there is meant to be something for all. The United States has two and a bit political parties. The U.K. has three this is about as far as the media gets, an illusion of choice. Kerry and Bush are no different than CNN and Fox.

I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the news media, and I don't agree with you. Media ownership is an amorphous and complex thing. Media owners certainly do have interests and involvement in government, though the degree to which that manifests itself in day to day reporting is arguable and tenuous at best. That's not to say there that journalists and editors don't experience pressure (directly and indirectly) from many quarters to change a story, or say, to influence which stories are reported.

Differences between networks or particular publications are essentially differences in reporting standards and journalistic integrity. In that regard I would argue that there is a very big difference between Fox and CNN, though both are equally flawed in their own way.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Fishdude

[yabasta 0]

I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the news media, and I don't agree with you. Media ownership is an amorphous and complex thing. Media owners certainly do have interests and involvement in government, though the degree to which that manifests itself in day to day reporting is arguable and tenuous at best. That's not to say there that journalists and editors don't experience pressure (directly and indirectly) from many quarters to change a story, or say, to influence which stories are reported.

Differences between networks or particular publications are essentially differences in reporting standards and journalistic integrity. In that regard I would argue that there is a very big difference between Fox and CNN, though both are equally flawed in their own way.

I like to think i know a thing or two about media also. It is a subject too big to fet into in this thread really but of course Fox and CNN are not the whole picture they are just two of the big guns. They are also two news channels who have been found guilty of serious journalistic crimes such as killing a story to satisfy the advertisers and simply misleading viewers. This is obviously because they are managed and they have an agenda.

Regardless of their presentation etc you have to look at what is reported and what isn`t reported not just how it is spun.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I like to think i know a thing or two about media also. It is a subject too big to fet into in this thread really but of course Fox and CNN are not the whole picture they are just two of the big guns. They are also two news channels who have been found guilty of serious journalistic crimes such as killing a story to satisfy the advertisers and simply misleading viewers. This is obviously because they are managed and they have an agenda.

Regardless of their presentation etc you have to look at what is reported and what isn`t reported not just how it is spun.

Sure, I'm not disputing that - merely contesting that the media isn't ultimately state-run and that your assertion that it is is highly contentious. There are a whole variety of pressures that impact different forms of media and give rise to certain idiosyncratic biases. In the US and Europe direct government intervention in the running of the self-regulating press is rare, compared to say Russia and China where stories are vetted and frequently censored by 'political consultants'. Ultimately most forms (but not all) forms of mass-media are for profit businesses with pressures coming from all sides, not simply from government.

In any case, listening to some people complain about "massive liberal bias" stems from news reporting that stories that presents government in a negative light. That in itself should remove any doubts that the media is 'state-run'. In fact all you can draw from that is that the news organisations have often have their own specific agendas, quite apart from that of the government.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Fishdude

[slim 1,533]

Like everything else in this "war on terror"....

A few days go by, and no one remembers anything even happened.

[tmma 467]

Yipeeeeeeee It's back again This thread is indestructable-it must have nine lives or something