us people - your tv dosnt speak the truth

**~~WasiGermany~~** · 03-23-03, 10:41 PM

i just watched nbc ,and saw the first time a small part from the video of pow´s on an american channel
perhaps i have to say that in the rest of the civilized world its normal to broadcast this video .
now guess what they showed ....
a marine (?) was saying his name and number ;the small part was 2-3 seconds long
the best parts ,you will never see i think ,and i am not speaking from the scenes with dead us-soldiers
they all were scared ,very scared.....
and the man who told the name and number ,looking so brave ,seems to be under a huge shocked ,no more signs of a brave and honored soldier
they told a bizarr story to explain why only showing this small part.
and mr rumsfeld should shut up ;speaks about geneva conventions .....
he and his comrades treat the right with feet !!!
want examples ?
you remember the pictures of taliban in guantanamo-bay ?
or the surrendering iraqis(dont belief this shit they tell that every iraqi gives up, they only got 500-1000 surrenderes which is quite not a lot) ?
i thought pow´s shouldnt be shown on tv ?
the right law to the right time................................

**CounslerCoffee** · 03-23-03, 10:55 PM

The surrendering Iraqis were just that, surrendering. They were not yet POWs.

As for the showing of the video... NBC isn't suppose to do that, and will probably be punished. Now, anything else that you said I didn't understand.

**Coldrake** · 03-23-03, 10:57 PM

After waving white flags and pretending to surrender and then opening fire on US troops, the next group of Iraqis that walked in front of my Abrams would get a .50 cal. round upside the head. All bets off.

**hypewaders** · 03-23-03, 10:59 PM

I'm sure there are many armed American teenagers in Iraq who agree. This is another reason why this war will not end happily for anyone, including America.

**Coldrake** · 03-23-03, 11:34 PM

Hype, I won't argue with that.

**Clockwood** · 03-23-03, 11:41 PM

Happily, no. I am sure it will make very few happy at first. But the prosperity of future a iraq with economic vitality, a democratic government, and personal freedom will be our payment. So will Americas continued survival.

Slapping the smile (and moustach) of saddam's face certainly mayes me happy.

**hypewaders** · 03-23-03, 11:56 PM

I would imagine Saddam is smiling the broadest satanic smile of his miserable life right now. The Iraqis deserved the honor of wiping it off- not foreign invaders. I hope he goes out like Mussolini and not like Usama did, out of sight.

**Red Devil** · 03-24-03, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Coldrake
After waving white flags and pretending to surrender and then opening fire on US troops, the next group of Iraqis that walked in front of my Abrams would get a .50 cal. round upside the head. All bets off.

Typical SS trick of WW2

**Microzoft** · 03-24-03, 01:33 AM

Thanks to free press, many got the opportunity to see our POW’s. Very sad imagines regardless the side of a conflict.

The White House it’s out raged crying high and loud violation of the Geneva Convention. How hypocritical can they get. US media supported by the US regime had no problem parading (not too long ago) the Afghan prisoners or the Afghan POW in Guantanamo Cuba. In fact, the US media has been displaying lots of images of Iraqis POW’s for the last 4 days.

The Big difference is that International Red Cross has being allowed (not confirmed from more then two sources) to check on the US POW’s in Baghdad. Something that US Government had never allowed to Afghan POW in Cuba.

One of he US POW said “Our job is only to go and repair things and only shoot on defense”. Sad, and wondered if that poor teenager was also one of those that felt right about using US super power to invade countries against international support.

But then again, the contrast of civilians unarmed victims with no possibility to defended themselves against tough US over arm Marines, particular small children killed in this war wipes out any possibility of remorse.

Just crossing the unpopulated desert, we have over 20 casualties and over 20 casualties on friendly fire. The taking of Baghdad is going to be anything but a picnic.

And let us not forget, that regardless how evil or fanatic Saddam is, the Iraqis are legitimately defending their own country against a foreign invasion. International law is on their side.

**Red Devil** · 03-24-03, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Microzoft
1. The Big difference is that International Red Cross has being allowed (not confirmed from more then two sources) to check on the US POW’s in Baghdad. Something that US Government had never allowed to Afghan POW in Cuba.

2. Sad, and wondered if that poor teenager was also one of those that felt right about using US super power to invade countries against international support.

3. But then again, the contrast of civilians unarmed victims with no possibility to defended themselves against tough US over arm Marines, particular small children killed in this war wipes out any possibility of remorse.

I find many opinions within this forum biased and based on conviction or political leanings rather than hard fact.

1. The Iraqi authorities have "allegedly" given their word that these prisoners will be treated humanely - we shall see.

2. Was it cruel on the Allies of WW2 to invade and remove a similar dictator in Adolph Hilter?

3. Where is the evidence that says civilians "unarmed victims" with no possibility to defend themselves? Against what? The soldiers liberating Iraq have been seen to be bending over backwards to spare the civil population from any bloodshed! This is one of the very reasons that 99% of Baghdad is still in one piece; out of the whole metropolis only 50 targets have been selected and hit, being military and Governmental installations.

Reporters confirm that the vast majority of the city is untouched and that the basic infrastructure is intact with water, electricity and traffic on the roads. Iraq claims "only" 3 civilians have died in the so called "blitz" of Baghdad on that first night, and since. Surely it would have been in the interests of Iraqi Propaganda to claim hundreds dead?

**Microzoft** · 03-24-03, 02:06 AM

I think that the “we shall see” should apply to your own remarks.

About 50 buildings hit? In Baghdad alone, we have conducted more then 4000 missile attacks in and around the city, and you believe that we only hit Military installations?

The “we shall see”, really depends on what news channels are you watching!

**Bruce Wayne** · 03-24-03, 05:33 AM

Touché!

**Vortexx** · 03-24-03, 06:10 AM

After waving white flags and pretending to surrender and then opening fire on US troops, the next group of Iraqis that walked in front of my Abrams would get a .50 cal. round upside the head. All bets off.

Did the above event REALLY happen or could this be another media lie to cast enough hate in our hearts to justify for example non-specific carpet bombing of baghdad, should the iraqi people choose against expectations not want to be "liberated" and rather fight a city guerilla ????

I do think that some members of the republican guard can be that devious, but also usa media-spinners, we gotta stay cautious....

**Tiassa** · 03-24-03, 06:36 AM

I just don't get it. In the US, we make fun of "sheep". Yet ... well ...

In fact, there is little sign that senior commanders are giving up.

Even the coalition report of last week that the commander of the Iraqi 51st Division at Basra had surrendered was later downgraded to a "brigade" commander and the New York Times now says that the man concerned was actually a junior officer "masquerading as a higher-up in an attempt to win better treatment". (BBC)

And perusing this Guardian article ... well, while it won't surprise me when we find one, it is just now as I read the story that I catch the paragraph:

Major Chris Hughes, a US forces spokesman in Kuwait, would not confirm the reports. He said there were "sites of interest" that the military was eager to examine but declined to comment on whether anything suspicious had been found: "A conclusion as far as chemical weapons are concerned is premature."

Literally. That's the first time I've heard that. Of course I only watched two hours of war today instead of six; it's so easy to get behind on the latest thing that's been blown out of proportion. But in those two hours I'd heard seven times that we'd found a chemical weapons plant, and once that the whole thing was a rumor.

,
Tiassa

**~~WasiGermany~~** · 03-24-03, 06:56 AM

did you see the oskar-show in cnn news ?
they cut again the best part !!!
they said that political themes were mixed of a few into their speeches ;also micheal moore...
they showed a small part of his speech ,but not all !
at the end he said :"shame on on MR president ,shame on you"
but us-news dont show it.................

**~~heflores~~** · 03-24-03, 08:15 AM

Goodyfish,
I really think that repeating pictures that was posted over and over again is not suitable. Please delete the picture above, for Helen repeated it in another post.

Also, I don't know about others, but my stomach can't really handle graphic pictures of war either of Iraqis or Americans or on that matter any graphic pictures. I think anyone handling those pictures too much is really sick.

Please do something fish

**Don Hakman** · 03-24-03, 08:17 AM

TV is just as reliable and trustworthyas Clear Channel AM talk radio

**goofyfish** · 03-24-03, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by heflores
Please do something fish

I'm working on 'em.

They are being deleted in most instances where there is no
substantial comment, or being replaced by links anywhere else.

**swisstony** · 03-24-03, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Red Devil

2. Was it cruel on the Allies of WW2 to invade and remove a similar dictator in Adolph Hilter?

This is a ridiculous argument.

Hitler was a Stable political leader who had the overwhelming support of his population. His ambitions for 'Lebensraum' and virtual subjugation of the european continent was the reason the allies had the need to wage war.

You have to remember that the allies DESTROYED germany as a viable state, they didn't stop at the German Border and say "hang on let's just get Hitler now"
World War Two was a war of Ideologies and survival. Not about a regime change.

Any comparison of the allies intentions in World War Two and Gulf War Two are simply wrong. When you invade a country even if it is to "liberate" it from an evil dictator, the population will fight you tooth and nail.

We won't get Baghdad for months.