Anybody who was paying attention could spot glaring discrepancies in reportage frome various sources. http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=57339&group=webcast One wonders whats next, how long will it take to put a US sanctioned repression in place? What will the US do about the unsecured 400 mile border with syria?
Most american news is "news" it's entertainment. Feeding the people what they want to hear makes more money. If the majority of americans were opposed to the war, then it would surely have been portrayed in the opposite manor.
Has nothing to do with what the majority of americans oppose. It also has nothing to do with facts or integrity. War makes great entertainment (news) which translates to great business for the networks. The networks also want to make sure they are on the government's (military's) side so they get to do the "embedded" shit.
1. Please cut it out with the "k" in America. Just a pet peeve of mine. 2. Neither I nor most of the people I know watch news the same as they watch looney toones or the superbowl. We watch because we are worried like heck about the world and it gives us a sense of being in control. 3. I really wish people would cut it out about our opressing everybody. ITS NOT HAPPENING. You know its not happening because we allow people to protest us and we dont just kill them all. Would you perfer we put saddam back in office?
Let me quote this "article." Wow! War cost money! Go figure! Also, a war like this one, in which you don't want to kill many civilian's, is of course, going to cost money. Do you want more money, or dead civilian's? You make the choice! I count two. Not really rash if it's only two. It all landed in the dessert. No one was ever harmed, and the missiles were taken off-line. Even the "article" acknowledges this. Suicide bombers... Geez. There were a ton of them! I remember watching all those suicide bombings on TV. Oh wait, I don't watch TV! I read the BBC, Washington Post, and a FRENCH newspaper called liberation. (Liberation.com) Those sandstorms, wow. The weather man really screwed up, didn't he? Seeing as how all those sand storms were prepared for. They are the most precise. By precise they mean about 70-75% precise. That means that they are, without a doubt, the most precise missiles to date. Also, civilian deaths were very low. They could of been higher. Do you want them higher? When are people going to wake up to the fact that your not supposed to stand in front of a tank! Okay, Im done. This "article" lost all of the creditability that it didn't have, when it did this: They used the ** things! Come on! Any *real* publication would never use those. That source is so bias, it's not even funny. Wait, it is funny. Im laughing right now.
Im using the k in the same sense that it was formerly used, to distinguish the country as it currently exists from the democratic nation standing for individual freedom that it used to be.
To true, Salty. Thank you for reminding me of where Im at. Oh, and of interest. It was Abby Hoffman that started all this "Amerika" crap. The article is about internet advertising (Go figure), but is still of interest. http://www.kroeker.net/published/steal_this_site.htm
From the article: "Americans were told by their media that there were no alternatives and that the only option was for Americans to get in there and get the job done (= war) and let the rest of the world be damned. The rest of world was told by their media that there were numerous other options (diplomatic, economic, etc.) " True. Now after the deed was done, do Americans see the obsurdity of rushing into this war? Has the sense of 'war' been thrown out? Or maybe the American media would like to say, "war is not to gain power anymore, it's to secure peace." Obsurd to say that now?...not according to the Americans who supported the campaign into Iraq and it's media. btw...right now, 1:48am Eastern Time on the History channel I am watching a program about how to "Protect Yourself In The Event Of A Terrorist Attack." wooohoooo at least it's not on prime time FOX. edit--- also from the article: "Spain is nominally a member of the coalition, but 91% of the population here opposes the war and the largest and most impressive demonstrations against the war have been held here..." later on "As a result, Spain never actually fought in the war, it only offered verbal support and air space for American fly-overs" A huge majority of the people oppose American action yet the government offers verbal support?! Can America do anything?
coffee Wow! War cost money! Go figure! Also, a war like this one, in which you don't want to kill many civilian's, is of course, going to cost money. Do you want more money, or dead civilian's? You make the choice! what is a brain? I count two. Not really rash if it's only two. count again It all landed in the dessert. No one was ever harmed, and the missiles were taken off-line. Even the "article" acknowledges this. the point is that it is not accurate and not that it killed anyone Suicide bombers... Geez. There were a ton of them! I remember watching all those suicide bombings on TV. Oh wait, I don't watch TV! I read the BBC, Washington Post, and a FRENCH newspaper called liberation. (Liberation.com) Those sandstorms, wow. The weather man really screwed up, didn't he? Seeing as how all those sand storms were prepared for. what what They are the most precise. By precise they mean about 70-75% precise. That means that they are, without a doubt, the most precise missiles to date. Also, civilian deaths were very low. They could of been higher. Do you want them higher? how precise? what tests were perfomed? what missiles are you talking about how low? do you really know? from what source do you get your figures? When are people going to wake up to the fact that your not supposed to stand in front of a tank! who was standing? the target was a hotel where people eat, sleep etc Okay, Im done. This "artie" lost all of the creditability that it didn't have, when it did this: haha! really? they pose a question and that translates to loss of credibilty? They used the ** things! Come on! Any *real* publication would never use those. what what That source is so bias, it's not even funny. Wait, it is funny. Im laughing right now. tell me what is biased. biased towards whom, what?
