Now dont be getting emotional OG, remember America is independant of Israel now. Its ok to speak your mind and say openly 'Israel stinks'. Hopefully you wont be held responsible for the holocaust.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The internet is the WORST for propaganda. It is easy to find biased sources that fabricate, take out of context, or find scattered instances that defend a postion of hate. Stupid emotional web surfers swallow this crap hook line and sinker, and never think to verify or analyse the content.
The agents of hate have a field day on the internet.
[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of the American administration, American media and many Americans, everytime Iraq or Afghanistan is mentioned.
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
"The internet is the WORST for propaganda."
But you love to dig shyte up yourself, but thats not propaganda. BTW Happy Thanks giving.
I was hoping to get a response from you in the Israel and Amercia thread. Make us proud go for it. :D
No, there is a difference. Reputable media can confirm or deny claims. Ask Dan Rather. Additionally most of the US media is quite liberal, and, for example every single member of National Public Radio, a government sponsored agency, who gave to a political campaign, gave to Kerry. There are checks and balances.
The Media takes the "Fredom of the Press" seriously. What we are talking about on the internet are complete fabrications. Lies, mistatements, and hated filled agendas. How many millions of journalists around the world will sift through a statement from the US governement? But no one can stand up to lies that morph around the internet, gaining ferocity with every itteration. There are no checks and balances in the cyberworld.
The internet provides a "source" for any point of view. There are not enough "fact checkers" to possibly debunk every piece of crap on the internet. So liveshoaib can behave like a lemming, or a sheep, swallowing whatever crap he chooses, then regurgitating it on demand on Gupshup. And woe unto the Muslim who would contradict him! Falling out of line with the standard belief will cause your faith in Islam to be questioned. Dissenting Muslims are muzzled by the fear of being labled kuffar, and becoming an outcast. It is a very powerful way of keeping the brothers in line.
Propaganda is alive and well on the internet, Muslims are at the heart of a lot of it...
We have "reputable" media like Fox news always denying claims that marines can do nothing wrong in Iraq. We have reputable media telling us day in day night that Karzai got elected in the most honest election ever held in the world. The reputable media also tells us that he is the president of Afghanistan, when the whole world knows he is the president of Kabul.
Reputable indeed, and most of it is American.
Whoever disagrees with this reputable meida is either a commie, lefite or extremist islamic terrorist.
Fox is the exception, and it sure drives you guys crazy. The vast majority of media int he US, and the UK for that matter is quite liberal.
Your denial of the election in Afghanistan has no basis in fact. There were thousands of Afghans, and thousands of International observers watching the polls. They are all incomplete agreement that there were scattered irregularities, but that Afghans in overwhelming numbers voted for Karzai. You are just pi$$ed that the Afghan people do not agree with your political view. The election in Afhganistan was as fair and unbiased as anywhere in the Muslim world.
And, what if you are just wrong? If you are wrong, you are denying that the Aghans are intelligent enough to make rational decisions. You are insulting an important effort to create peace in a war torn country. Why would you do this? Because you do not want the US to have a single success. Better that the Afghans suffer than the US succeed. A truely bizzare set of values....
The elections inside Afghanistan were fair and honest as half of the population (women) live inside the voting booth. Additionally, those who reject Karzai as the President are dreaming about bringing the Taliban back so the women can be paraded in soccer stadiums and beaten with lashes.
^^ OG any news outlet that doesn't agree with you is labeled as propaganda or some other crap. I have seen you beetch about guardian, Fox etc etc. I guess it's human nature to shut anything that doesnt agree. Remember though a good analyst always keeps an open mind, no matter how much he agrees or disagrees. I would'nt be suprised one bit if you read something in marinecorp.com that didn't agree with your opinions and you labeled that as a propaganda as well. So since you are conveniently staying away from the Israel thread. Let me ask was the U.S.S liberty propaganda as well, and some arab govt probably provided funding to the veteran of that disaster to open up a web site. Did the same arab govt gave money to the congressional committee to look into it?
I hope I am around to see the day when U.S proudly adds two more stars one for star of david and the other for the colonized Iraq. :D on to their flag. Nothing to be ashamed of; demographics change.
"OG any news outlet that doesn't agree with you is labeled as propaganda or some other crap. I have seen you beetch about guardian,"
Yes, I have a huge disagreement with the English "Tabloid Press". In part, that is because any semblance of neutrality has been abandoned in these cases. By the time a foreign paper is campaigning against a US candidate in the US, there is a real credibility problem there. Other than Fox, and some talk radio, it is pretty hard to find conservative views on the air. Do a search on the CBS fiasco with 60 Minutes, and you will find my personal experience with biased press.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"OG any news outlet that doesn't agree with you is labeled as propaganda or some other crap. I have seen you beetch about guardian,"
Yes, I have a huge disagreement with the English "Tabloid Press". In part, that is because any semblance of neutrality has been abandoned in these cases. By the time a foreign paper is campaigning against a US candidate in the US, there is a real credibility problem there. Other than Fox, and some talk radio, it is pretty hard to find conservative views on the air. Do a search on the CBS fiasco with 60 Minutes, and you will find my personal experience with biased press.
[/QUOTE]
I guess I need to be explicit with you. Just because an English newspaper is campaigning makes it uncredible? What if you wereto take that (election) part out. I am sure you would come out with some other excuse. I think the CBS 60 minute is the Bush letter (is that what you mean??) thingy. So let me ask you this if Michael Gordon or Ivo daalder or Ken Pollack disagree on Brookings web site on Iraq Afghanistan etc would then that site be uncredible as well. Hence my point that its human nature to shut out what we dont want to hear and label it as uncredible. Same applies to that CIA spook that wrote some books or Richard Clarke area they all uncredible as well?
Edit added the e in Clark
Just because an English newspaper is campaigning makes it uncredible?
Yes.
Journalism is not politics. If they printed a discalimer at the top, "All the Leftist Slanted News thats Fit to Print", it might be at least a little more intellectually honest. Of course Fox's "Fair and Balanced" is laughable too. Fox at best provides balance. Read Bernard Goldbergs' book "Bias", an excellent read. The Guardians reporting of the "news" is always in keeping with a strict leftist agenda. In most papers the news is primarily factual, and the opinions and editorials are well labeled.
democrats=CNN
republicans=FOX
So they are uncredible as well. BTW NYTimes was endorsing Bush (Tom Friedman, the sunday before elections) so then NYTImes is uncredible as well. I guess I 'll start reading CSMonitor, Haaretz and Al-Jazz.
Edit: But if Guardian did not favor /campaign then they are credible Y/N ?
Oh and what about Brookings are they not so credible anymore...What about AEI, RAND ansd FPA. I belong to all of those should I pull my membership out.
Keep your NAMBLA membership too....
so a radio conversation aired on israeli tv detailing the death of a 13 year girl killed at close range with between 10 - 17 bullets only results in people talking about alleged bias/propaganda against israel?
og you should be the last one to complain about propaganda. you know a lot of your arguments come from sources with specific political slants themselves.
Not necessarily. Some of us want fair and honest elections under a neutral body. Not a puppet being hoisted in order to keep bombing and killing innocent women and children.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Keep your NAMBLA membership too....
[/QUOTE]
No thats for turds like you. :D But don't be jealous ..... just becasue someone reads more than you. You should be envious. Now go back to your jew loving websites. LaShana Tova Hayseed.
OG CIA officers tried to side with the democrats (I am sure you've heard that search any outlet that you prefer. It was all over the news) this election year. CIA is not into policy making so they should be neutral, however, they were not so according to your logic then they should be uncredible as well.
IN CASE
[QUOTE]
:Ohioguy: Fox is the exception, and it sure drives you guys crazy. The vast majority of media int he US, and the UK for that matter is quite liberal.
[/QUOTE]
IN CASE AND IF YOU DONT KNOW NOT OLNY DID THE BBC AND WESTERN MEDIA PRESENT THE FRENCH RESISTANCE AS A LEGITIMATE RESISTANCE, THE BBC INFACT USED TO BROADCAST CODED MESSAGES TO THE FRENCH RESISTANCE.... THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE BBC TO THE FRENCH RESISTANCE WAS MADE ON JUNE 5TH 1944. (WAS IN FRENCH) MEANING "WOUND MY HEART WITH A MONOTONOUS LANGUOR". THIS SPURRED RESISTANCE INTO ACTIONS AGAINST GERMANS, THAT NIGHT WHEN THIS MESSAGE WAS BROADCASTED ON BBC ONE THOUSANDS ATTACKS TOOK PLACE AROUND FRANCE DESTROYIN EVERYTHIN, ARE THESE ACTIONS BEING UNDERTAKEN BY MUSLIMS OF IRAQ ANY DIFFERENT TO THE ACTIONS WHICH WERE UNDERTAKEN BY THE FRENCH AGAINST THE NAZI OCCUPATION OF GERMANY SUPPORTED BY BBC THROUGH ITS CODED MESSAGES. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE.
SAME WE HEAR THE TERM INSURGENTS, FOREIGNERS AND ARE DISCREDITED BY THE MEDIA, BUT THE FRENCH RESISTANCE WAS ASSISTED BY FOREINERS THE BRITISH ARE FOREIGNER WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF THE FRENCH. BUT THIS COMPARISON IS RARELY MENTIONED TO MEDIA, THE BRITISH WERE FOREIGN INSURGENTS, HELPING THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE WITH THEMSELVES OF NAZI OCCUPATION BUT THE BBC NEVER USED THAT TERMINOLOGY.
SAME WAR ON TERROR, TERRORISM, FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY... BLA BLA BLA...KIND OF BULLSH****. THEN WHAT KIND OF LIBERAL DO U MEAN. OG LOOK INTO REAL WORLD ISLAM IS GOIN TO RULE AND INSHAALLAH U LL SEE THE FALL OF CAPTALISM SOON.
actually ravage has a point, some people seem more outraged at the misattribution of a quote, rather than a childs body riddled with bullets.