Russell Brand: Fox News is ‘fanatical, terrorist, propagandist’ and ‘more dangerous than ISIS�

a reply to: BO XIAN

ok, the internet can provide a lot of access, but that would require you to do nothing BUT sit in front of a screen all day....so tell me..

if you threw out your TV so long ago, how did you find that fox lies less?

and can you provide an example to substantiate your claim?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The

The only region why Iraq was stable under the Baathists was because Saddam and his Olga would feed dissenters into the chipper-shredder. It was stable because of a dictatorial iron fist. Like the Balkaans the underlying ethnic and religious conflicts were held in check by the iron fist of the Soviet Union and then, after the Soviet Union fell, those old conflicts came out. Are you willing to agree with the brutality needed to keep those fanatical factions in check? I wager you are not.

Saddam was brutal against opposition, terrorists, and so on but the ordinary citizens were relatively well off for the area. The truth of the matter is that it's not a perfect world and many areas are ruled by brutal dictators. That doesn't mean we should go into the region though, sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. Look at the situation in Iraq today, as bad as Saddam was they were better off under him, and their situation is getting even worse by the day.

It's certainly not the ideal but we just need to leave these places as they are in most circumstances and let them become whatever they're going to be. It's not our place to go in and forcefully change their culture into something we approve of, and even if it were why Iraq? To accomplish the goals that were stated would be a 50-100 year mission... why them? Why not any of the other 100 brutal dictatorships around the globe?

Besides, if Saddam being such a brutal guy was a problem maybe we shouldn't have armed, funded, trained, and empowered him in the first place.

a reply to: Aazadan

And how long will it be until MSNBC becomes a subtle mirror image?

I trust no media. They're all equally as dangerous. Fox News is just up front about it.

russell brand is the love of my life i swear to god he is perf

originally posted by: Daedalus
i'ma just chime in here right quick.....

i kinda like you, Marlin, but i don't think you're quite right on this one...

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
There is a few differences here, first of all we have a permission system here where you have to ask for authorization to shoot and kill anyone.

if you lie in order to get that permission, what difference does it make if you asked or not? you still carried out the act under false pretenses...

Secondly these people clearly had weapons, I am very familiar with firearms and the RPG stuck out the most, it wasn't clear if the reporters in the video had weapons or not I would suspect from the helo you couldn't tell.

No.....the whole thrust of the thing is that they claimed that the reporter had an AK, or a missile launcher...it was a camera. i'm also familiar with firearms...what they reported, when requesting authorization to engage, was NOT what was actually present on the ground.



so did american contractors. if you remember, blackwater got themselves a fair bit of notoriety, after reports showed up in the news that they had been found to have been driving around iraqi neighborhoods in the middle of the night, indiscriminately firing into people's homes, and cars...so don't act like american occupation forces never did anything distasteful, or evil over there..

Any reporter running around jihadis takes his life in his own hand, just like ours did during the second war armed or not. If you remember one of Fox News reporters took a nasty head wound from an RPG, and Daniel Pearl lost his head televised in full youtube color

what made them jihadis? is it because they're brown? or wear funny clothes? or because they speak arabic, or farsi?...you do understand that not every person in the middle east is a terrorist, or a jihadist, right?

Lastly for the children how could have the pilots known? They were inside the van out of sight.
This is one of those horrible things that happens in war, maybe one should ask why would you take your kids into a free fire zone?

it's kinda hard NOT to take your kids into a free fire zone, when most of your goddamn country is classified by it's occupier as a free fire zone...

the easy way to avoid these kinds of things, is not to lie about weapons, so you can light some people up because you're bored...hell, if the federal government had adhered to this principle, we never even would have gone to iraq....

I have to disagree. If you walk with violent people who shoot at both civilians and helos, you take a big risk. A FLIR has a hard time defining an RPG from a shoulder mounted camera and a reporter in the midst of combatants takes the risk that those combatants will be responded to. The helo acted appropriately, in accordance with the ROE by engaging armed combatants. That the reporter, sympathetic to the terrorists, was in the middle, was his own fault. American forces, mindless propaganda aside, have a very strict ROE intended to limit non combatan casualties. That unscrupulous people put themselves or others in harms way, often to make a political point, is not the fault if the responders but the fault of those who would put themselves or their children in a firefight. That the terrorists would drive a far full of children into a fight to get propaganda points shows just how morally bankrupt they are.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The

The only region why Iraq was stable under the Baathists was because Saddam and his Olga would feed dissenters into the chipper-shredder. It was stable because of a dictatorial iron fist. Like the Balkaans the underlying ethnic and religious conflicts were held in check by the iron fist of the Soviet Union and then, after the Soviet Union fell, those old conflicts came out. Are you willing to agree with the brutality needed to keep those fanatical factions in check? I wager you are not.

Saddam was brutal against opposition, terrorists, and so on but the ordinary citizens were relatively well off for the area. The truth of the matter is that it's not a perfect world and many areas are ruled by brutal dictators. That doesn't mean we should go into the region though, sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. Look at the situation in Iraq today, as bad as Saddam was they were better off under him, and their situation is getting even worse by the day.

It's certainly not the ideal but we just need to leave these places as they are in most circumstances and let them become whatever they're going to be. It's not our place to go in and forcefully change their culture into something we approve of, and even if it were why Iraq? To accomplish the goals that were stated would be a 50-100 year mission... why them? Why not any of the other 100 brutal dictatorships around the globe?

Besides, if Saddam being such a brutal guy was a problem maybe we shouldn't have armed, funded, trained, and empowered him in the first place.

Yes. The concept of the " enemy of my enemy is my ally" failed in WWII. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler, but we supported him because he was fighting the Bazis an thus we permitted a scourge just as bad as the third reight (sp) to be unleashed upon the world. That is always a mistake.

However, to blame the US for the concur is disingenuous. These guess were kept in check by the brutality of the Baathists and the Ottomens before them. You, and many others, would refuse to stomach what was needed to keep assholes like Al Sadr under control after the fall of Sadaam. Heck, a society that gets all upset about not providing ethnically and culturally correct organic meals cannot do what it needs to restore order.

You condem us for the failure but you would condemn us for doing what needed to be done so there is no win in this situation at all.

a reply to: NavyDoc

there was no evidence that the apache in question, had actually taken fire..

furthermore, there was no proof that the people being targeted were up to no good..

additionally, the reporters were with Reuters...they weren't sympathetic to the terrorists, they were doing their job.

you call them all terrorists...where is your proof that they were indeed terrorists?

i think you're way off base here, doc..

I didn't know what this dude represented until about 2 weeks ago. Very well-spoken and is the perfect example of a free thinking HUMAN.

We need more celebs like him on the front line so at least it appears to be a balance. If I see lady gag or Kesha one more damn time I'm going to lose it.

This guy is nothing short of remarkable, he won me over when I watched the interview with him and a beautiful disabled journalist, Marlena Kantene. I was blown away. I'm not talking internet blown away I mean literally getting that choked up feeling because it shows he has a genuine heart.
Great dude. I am going to finish watching this asap.

originally posted by: TheBlueShiroux
russell brand is the love of my life i swear to god he is perf

Im not trying to be offensive, but if this is what women look for in men these days this world is doomed

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: mahatche

We are all susceptible to subtle suggestions. Marketing teams and psychologists understand it, but the average person would never know what hit them.

In the case of hip hop I see proof for subversion. The radio presents the gangster side and nothing else. I think repetition is an important part of training.

all the different reasons add up and soon you have a general population that doesn't give a damn.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. I greatly agree.

Which, of course, was the objective of the oligarchy to begin with.

Brain dead, numbed down lemmings, sheleple, serfs, slaves are much easier to manipulate, !!!CONTROL!!! herd into the death chambers when the time comes.

I can't say I have much fear of death chambers. Historically they are a reality, but it's not the only reason people want to control the media. I don't live in fear of the media either. Some #ty people exist, but some artists and pundits really do have good intentions.

I still respect people like Matt Taibbi and Ben Swann, they may have flaws, but mostly try to expose bull#. Some of the most iconic singers in history became iconic for challenging the status quo. Bob Marley and Public Enemy encouraged everyone to stand up to power. Sometimes popular people get popular because people relate. it's not always government designed. Honest artists and journalists also become targets when power goes mad.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes. The concept of the " enemy of my enemy is my ally" failed in WWII. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler, but we supported him because he was fighting the Bazis an thus we permitted a scourge just as bad as the third reight (sp) to be unleashed upon the world. That is always a mistake.

However, to blame the US for the concur is disingenuous. These guess were kept in check by the brutality of the Baathists and the Ottomens before them. You, and many others, would refuse to stomach what was needed to keep assholes like Al Sadr under control after the fall of Sadaam. Heck, a society that gets all upset about not providing ethnically and culturally correct organic meals cannot do what it needs to restore order.

You condem us for the failure but you would condemn us for doing what needed to be done so there is no win in this situation at all.

Sometimes a brutal regime is what's necessary to keep order, I'm also not the one equating providing proper ethnic meals to violently destabilizing a country and subjecting them to decades of bombing. What needed to be done? What need was there for us to go into Iraq? The entire thing was based on lies, propaganda, and defense contracts.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: NavyDoc

there was no evidence that the apache in question, had actually taken fire..

furthermore, there was no proof that the people being targeted were up to no good..

additionally, the reporters were with Reuters...they weren't sympathetic to the terrorists, they were doing their job.

you call them all terrorists...where is your proof that they were indeed terrorists?

i think you're way off base here, doc..

Right. Because armed individuals in a war zone are only there to sell Avon products. And yes, even though the reporters were contracted by Reuters, they were friendly with the terrorists and this is why they had unprecedented access and why they were contracted by Reuters in the first place. Talk about being off base.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes. The concept of the " enemy of my enemy is my ally" failed in WWII. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler, but we supported him because he was fighting the Bazis an thus we permitted a scourge just as bad as the third reight (sp) to be unleashed upon the world. That is always a mistake.

However, to blame the US for the concur is disingenuous. These guess were kept in check by the brutality of the Baathists and the Ottomens before them. You, and many others, would refuse to stomach what was needed to keep assholes like Al Sadr under control after the fall of Sadaam. Heck, a society that gets all upset about not providing ethnically and culturally correct organic meals cannot do what it needs to restore order.

You condem us for the failure but you would condemn us for doing what needed to be done so there is no win in this situation at all.

Sometimes a brutal regime is what's necessary to keep order, I'm also not the one equating providing proper ethnic meals to violently destabilizing a country and subjecting them to decades of bombing. What needed to be done? What need was there for us to go into Iraq? The entire thing was based on lies, propaganda, and defense contracts.

Ah, the great conspiracy again. We were there because they violated the armistice that ended the first gulf war. One could argue that we shouldn't have been the world policeman and shouldn't have liberated Kuwait, but we did and the second gulf war followed because of the unfinished business of the first.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


Yes. The concept of the " enemy of my enemy is my ally" failed in WWII. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler, but we supported him because he was fighting the Bazis an thus we permitted a scourge just as bad as the third reight (sp) to be unleashed upon the world. That is always a mistake.

However, to blame the US for the concur is disingenuous. These guess were kept in check by the brutality of the Baathists and the Ottomens before them. You, and many others, would refuse to stomach what was needed to keep assholes like Al Sadr under control after the fall of Sadaam. Heck, a society that gets all upset about not providing ethnically and culturally correct organic meals cannot do what it needs to restore order.

You condem us for the failure but you would condemn us for doing what needed to be done so there is no win in this situation at all.

I'm not your average anti-war hippie, i agree some war is justified. Anyone willing to stop genocide has my respect, but I can't think of any outside intervention successfully changing that region. I'm cool with Saddam being gone, but all these different sects see each other as mortal enemies. These factions are more concerned with the word of their god, than the opinion of outsiders. I can't stop you from trying, but they are going to do what they do.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Ah, the great conspiracy again. We were there because they violated the armistice that ended the first gulf war. One could argue that we shouldn't have been the world policeman and shouldn't have liberated Kuwait, but we did and the second gulf war followed because of the unfinished business of the first.

I used to think this way, I've written many essays on various websites where I defended us going to war. Saddam broke the terms of the cease fire, we were legally obligated to go, etc...

Then I became more pragmatic. Sure we should have gone in according to the letter of the law, but these types of things get ignored all the time. It would have worked out in everyones best interest had we simply avoided going in. By going in and finishing the job we've created a giant mess. Had we simply left it alone, especially considering there was no need to go in the entire region would be better off right now.

Just because we can invade a country doesn't mean that we should. After learning how nations actually operate, it's even more apparent. We should not have gone into Iraq and we should not go back into Iraq.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Right. Because armed individuals in a war zone are only there to sell Avon products. And yes, even though the reporters were contracted by Reuters, they were friendly with the terrorists and this is why they had unprecedented access and why they were contracted by Reuters in the first place. Talk about being off base.

have you actually WATCHED the video? have you looked into the event? i have.

they weren't contracted, they were Reuters employees...one was a respected war photographer, considered by some to be the best in the country...and the other was a driver/assistant...they had both been with Reuters for years..

iraq was only a warzone because we had MADE it one...and i only saw ONE person in the area of the incident, that looked like he MIGHT have had a weapon....but it was hard to tell for sure.

these guys were begging for permission to engage before that person even came into view...they mistook cameras for AK's, and i'm not sure what, for an RPG, and then they all just start flipping out....again, no evidence on the film that they were being actively engaged, or that the people they were targeting posed ANY sort of threat at all to them. they lied about weapons, they lied about the guy getting ready to shoot them with an RPG, and they lied about the van...said it was picking up bodies and weapons...and that there were 5 guys in it, when there were only 3 adults, at most....they were not giving accurate details about what was happening on the ground. and another photographer in another part of town, said it seemed like they were targeting ANY gathering, because they were fired on as well....

what i saw in the video sickened me...it sickened me years ago when i first saw it, and it still sickens me now....it was not clean, it was not by the book....

a reply to: NavyDoc

actually, the nonsense with the U.N. inspectors was only one version of why we went in...if you remember, they also accused saddam of having something to do with 9/11......i forget which order they were used, but there was ties to 9/11, WMD, and "saddam's just a mean guy"

there really was no legitimate reason to go into iraq.....it was more like "well, we're gonna go bomb the s**t out of Afghanistan, may as well get Iraq while we're there"

a reply to: Daedalus

1. In the year before I moved out of dad's house to my single wide on the same acre, I was exposed to lots of Dad's viewing of CBS--the MOST cluelessly liberal mouthpiece of the oligarchy. And, in Taipei, I had 13 years of CNN and sometimes others.

2. I had some exposure to Fox. There were a lot better reality testing and true-to-reality statements made on Fox.

3. No. That was years ago. I don't carry that kind of detail around in my active memory.

4. Probably there are others hereon who could well do what you ask.

a reply to: NavyDoc

IIRC, some have contended that we went into Iraq because Saddam was not kowtowing obediently enough to the oligarchy.

a reply to: mahatche

I AGREE.

And I think truth tellers deserve every support we can give them.

Actually, I'm more concerned that THERE MUST BE, SHOULD BE plenty of evidence to convict me of being a true follower of Christ, when the time comes, if that day comes and I'm still in my mortal life.