It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 27jd
So? There was no car packed with explosives in the context it was being reported. And you said it wasn't reported, which it was. You did not say it was reported, but didn't specify what the Brits were wearing. Now you're just trying to cover yourself, but your post is right near the top of the page. You said it was not reported. Now you say you saw it on Fox as well.
Originally posted by 27jd
Well, for one I don't think pictures of rapes can be openly aired on the news, just like beheadings, in case children are watching. That said, if our media was controlled by Bush and his cronies, ALOT of things would not have seen the light of day, not even the pictures that were released. It's a bunk argument that ALL of our media is controlled by this administration.
You're right, I don't care what they refer to them as. It just lacks professionalism, and gives clues as to how deeply they likely check the facts they are reporting. I wonder if they're the same ones who were reporting giant spiders fighting along side the resistance, I guess our biased media covered that up as well.
My brand of propaganda? I don't buy into propaganda on either side, and I'm against this war in Iraq. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge everybody who disagrees with you as somebody who supports Bush. I certainly don't. But that doesn't mean I believe every story that comes from the resistance/insurgents either, unlike some. I try not to buy into propaganda of ANY kind.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Not trying to cover anything, I just don't consider a half assed story missing half the facts a report, that's all.
For instance, remember when there were reports of the U.S striking a "terrorist" base, and it turned out that we attacked a wedding ceremony, or celebration? Well, would you consider those original stories as accurate reports?Would you consider that origianal story "news" ? Or would you consider it as worthless?
Regardless, I stand by my original statements. This will not reach mainstream press unless there are photos circulating out there, just like with the brit incident. And,waiting for western news services to carry a story before anyone believes it is assenine.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Just because something is unfit for primetime is no reason for the pentagon to keep photos under lock and key. As for the media being controlled by bush, to believe that this administration has not had a stranglehold on most of the reports out of Iraq is naive at best, nevermind all the journalist that have ended up shot and detained by coalition forces. Am I arguing that they have complete control? No, but they are trying.
Well, it lacks professionalism when most media outlets call the resistance insurgents, which they are clearly not, yet these are the very same sources that you are waiting for verification from. Sorry but your argument that this is propaganda, and that you are going to wait for reports from the other sides propaganda for verification, confuses me.
I never saw the iraqi resistance report cover anything on spiders. They have had quite a few breaking stories though.
It is human nature to accept that which we have already formed an opinion on, or are you to tell me that you are somehow different? The comment was not to you per se, just to all the posts in general that dismissed the story outright for no other reason than its source.
I never claimed you supported Bush or this war either, just like I never claimed that the Brit story was not on any western media outlet, just like I never claimed that I thought this story was true...
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
most western media sources did not report the story for a few days
Quick to judge?...Pot, kettle, black.
Originally posted by 27jd
Regardless of what I considered it, I would be wrong if I flat out said it wasn't reported. That's all. I understand what you mean, but you should have stated the western media reported, but in your opinion they reported it inaccurately.
The Brit incident happened so fast, it's impossible to say it wouldn't have been reported had there been no pictures. To say that would be mere speculation regardless how sure of your opinion you are. And why do you automatically believe the resistance reports, but dismiss western reports as biased?
Originally posted by 27jd
They'd better try harder, most of the reports out of Iraq are bad. More soldiers, more innocents killed every day. Support for this war, and this president is falling like a rock. There are almost no feel good stories coming from Iraq, if this administration was in control, the picture would not be so grim.
Being called in insurgent is not a blatant insult, being called a puppet is. Being called an occupier is not a blatant insult, being called an infidel is. That's the defference in the level of professionalism. That should be obvious. As for waiting for the other side's propaganda, I wait, again, to search for the middle ground.
Ask Syrian Sister, she'll provide you all the info you need. While you're at it ask her about the doves of war.
Maybe you should be a little more clear in what you really mean?
[When did I say resistance propaganda was your propaganda? When did I insinuate that you believe everything they say and support them? Please show the pot where he made the kettle feel as if the kettle was assumed to support or spread resistance propaganda.
Quds Press spoke by telephone with a member of the al-Ghazaliyah puppet police who confirmed the incident, saying that the two men were non-Arab foreigners but declined to be more precise about their nationality.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Let me get this straight, and please allow me to continue with the example that I provided for simplicity's sake. So when the media reports that a terrorist safe house is hit, when in fact no terrorist safe house was hit, that still counts as a report of the incident in your eyes?
Of course it's imposible to state with any certainty whether or not the story would have been covered had there been no photos. I have seen stories break though, and western media will not run it until there is overwhelming evidence floating around the public sphere. After a few years of this, yes, I have come to the conclusion that a story will not break unless there are photo's to back it up.
Now, as for automatically believing resistance reports, I never said I believed this report . Admittedly, I do put a bit of faith in the resistance report as I have seen too many instances where they are more accurate than western media. I do not however believe every story that they run, nor did I ever claim that to be the case either.
"That's just responsible journalism, you can't simply report something because somebody says it's true. Facts must be checked and must be verifiable, which is something I don't think, IMO, is important to members of the resistance."
but because I know that if they did they would employ actual arabs to do it
Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Buy your self a dictionary.
Partisans, and resistance fighters, that is the name of iraqies fighting the occupation.
in·sur·gent Audio pronunciation of "insurgent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
dictionary.reference.com...
Originally posted by Syrian Sister
and is it important to members of the western media??
The western media just reports anything the american government says as fact.
The IR reports get there info from people on the ground wether they are giving good info or not is up in the air.
As a truth seeker i will take everything with a grain of salt, even the word of my own people.
And still my findings are that they are atleast far far more reliable than the western media.
Originally posted by 27jd
Of course it counts as a report. For simplicity's sake, if you ask me for the answer to 2+2, and I say 15, did I not give you an answer? Not saying the answer is correct, but it is an answer.
That's just responsible journalism, you can't simply report something because somebody says it's true. Facts must be checked and must be verifiable, which is something I don't think, IMO, is important to members of the resistance.
You can have faith in whomever you wish, and I won't fault you for it. My personal take on this situation is that I'm nearly 100% certain that the coalition is not stupid enough to dress up soldiers as arabs to carry out "false flag" bombings. Not because I don't think they would stoop to that level, but because I know that if they did they would employ actual arabs to do it. There is no shortage of ruthless bastards who are out of the job since Saddam's fall, and most of them have a price. It would be completely retarded, not to mention way too risky, to dress up Americans as arabs when there are plenty of arabs that would do it for cash. If they were to get caught the coalition could easily deny all knowledge.
Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Look at those two brits they captured, you really thing they where just regular soldiers?
SAS? I thought the SAS moved in groups of four atleast.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
A resistance movement is a group dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...
www.answers.com...
par·ti·san1 (pär'tĭ-zən) pronunciation
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
By Sandy Shanks
"insurgent" has a dubious connotation. They are the bad guys.
During the American Civil War, confederate soldiers were described as rebels, or affectionately know as Johnny Reb. Technically speaking, they were, in fact, insurgents, but Americans demurred from calling their fellow Americans insurgents due to the harmful inference of the term.
Originally posted by 27jd
in·sur·gent Audio pronunciation of "insurgent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
dictionary.reference.com...
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
And what good would such an answer be? Would it in fact answer the question? No it would not. Would it be the answer to the question? No it would not.
So, yes, there was a report concerning a incident involving some brits, but was it the report of what truly happened? No it was not.
I seriously doubt we could get any sunnis to work for us, and for the record, yes that is IMHO.
I believe they were there to observe from a distance the police in Basra,
who have been infiltrated by the madhi army.
I hope you're honest enough to admit they want a Shia government in Iraq.