I will not believe any NEWS after this!!!!!

Originally posted by half_minded
You guys totally ignored the point where he talks about that one time, the reporter reported about the 'daisy cutter' bomb and his editor took it out claiming the report was 'redundant'.

And you totally ignore the point where terrorists trained and supported by the Taliban flew planes into buildings on 9/11.

His personal opinions aside, he still shows a good point about how journalists have very little knowledge and report back only part of wats really happening during war time.

You're absolutely right. This one reporter is indicative of all other reporters everywhere. This article has convinced me that all terrorists must have been holograms. Come to think of it, during my time in Iraq those insurgents didn't cast shadows....



[edit on 17-10-2006 by Astygia]

Originally posted by Astygia
And you totally ignore the point where terrorists trained and supported by the Taliban flew planes into buildings on 9/11.

I dont ignore it. I just dont believe it. Big difference between the two.

Originally posted by Astygia
You're absolutely right. This one reporter is indicative of all other reporters everywhere. This article has convinced me that all terrorists must have been holograms. Come to think of it, during my time in Iraq those insurgents didn't cast shadows....

I did not say he was indicative of reporters EVERYWHERE. My discussion is specific to the situation he described. The terrorists are holograms created by the US government. Come to think of it, during my time in Iraq those US soldiers were just killing innocent civilians and not terrorists.

Sarcasm does not prove anything.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by half_minded]

[edit on 17-10-2006 by half_minded]

You seem to believe that Bush and Co. being scumbags somehow equate to terrorists not being real.

I suppose you would have us believe that Hezbollah don't really exist and are all CIA plants, yes? And the Sons of Saddam? Holy Islamic Army? All video footage of these groups advocating violence during demonstrations, recruitment videos, and so on are fake, is that it?

My country's administration are a sick joke. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as terrorists. While I highly doubt you've actually been to Iraq, I know for a fact we're not targeting civilians.

Originally posted by Astygia

My country's administration are a sick joke. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as terrorists.

agreed,

there are terrorists..
but what do you label the people, that allow them to carry out there plans, because they beleive it will benefit corporate america?

Under the new laws.. they are enemy combatants.

Originally posted by Astygia
You seem to believe that Bush and Co. being scumbags somehow equate to terrorists not being real.

I was being sarcastic. I thought you would understand that after the last sentence I wrote: "Sarcasm does not prove anything. ".

I don't think terrorists are not real. But we were talking about 9/11 and I certainly do believe US gov. did it.

Originally posted by Astygia
I suppose you would have us believe that Hezbollah don't really exist and are all CIA plants, yes? And the Sons of Saddam? Holy Islamic Army? All video footage of these groups advocating violence during demonstrations, recruitment videos, and so on are fake, is that it?

Stop making assumptions. Terrorists are real, but not everything on the news is real. As for the videos, no proof that all of them are real. With today's technology you can easily make fake videos.

Originally posted by Astygia
My country's administration are a sick joke. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as terrorists. While I highly doubt you've actually been to Iraq, I know for a fact we're not targeting civilians.

If you doubt that if I have been to Iraq or not. Whhy should I belive you when you say you have? I merely added it in there for sarcasm. On an online discussion board, you never know anything about the other person for sure. You can only debate on known issues and speculate on your theories. Member's credibility is irrelevant because there is no way to verify it.

You are not targetting civilians, yet we have reports of thousands being dead.
And dont try to blame on the insurgents. Insurgents were in Iraq even before US invaded. The US made a mess of Iraq and people just cannot admit it so they try to blame everything on the insurgents. very convenient.

You know for a fact? Please go and read everyday news. US drops bomb and innocent civilians die because of 'collateral damage'. Infact, out of every 100 they kill, 99 are innocent people.

Your countries adminitration has a history of supplying weapons to countries. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were armed by US. When such countries fulfill their agenda, US runs in to disarm them and save the day. Also US has a history of 'making' terrorists to create cause for war or other purposes.

If you agree that your administration is a sick joke, then why would you agree on anything it says to you. They have lied before and its very hard to say if they are telling the truth. Why not try and fix your own government first. Raise a voice against them. Stop them from going to war with countries. Stop them from putting military into other countries against the will of the people of those countries. Thats what creating 'terrorism'.

If these countries want you out then why dont you leave.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by half_minded]

Personaly, I could care less if someone on these boards went to Iraq or not, that does not further merit your argument especialy in regards to this praticular peice of debate which has circulated itself for decades; the depreciation of objective and fair journalism. Soldiers are not embedded with omniscient powers in Iraq, thereby they are not always the best catalyst to use to denounce war efforts. There has been myriad instances of praticular incidents that have occured in Iraq which have been readily filtered by western media to degrade the level of war crimes commited in Iraq; the war itself is still illegal and no media agency has ever tackled that issue to the ground yet.

Luxifero

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Luxifero]

Originally posted by Luxifero
Soldiers are not embedded with omniscient powers in Iraq, thereby they are not always the best catalyst to use to denounce war efforts.

Agreed. But what captured my attention was that reporters report back whatever data they collect and its the editors who choose what information to display to the public. How do we know what data is kept hidden and what is revealed?

In case of war, we always get different numbers thrown around. We never know for sure how many people died. Infact, the number of people dead varies so much that its impossible to even get an approximate.

Who really knows how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians died since the start of Iraq war?

I'm not sure about the technical aspects regarding the dead in Iraq and other war zones, but what I do know is that violence has become so normative in these regions of the world that it's abstract noise now, nothing more -- this is the sad state we've come too. One civilian casualty should be taken as a horrendous crime, but we've been conditioned to believe that only large numbers of casualties ammounting well over 100 thousand are considered a mistake in strategy, and yes, just a mistake in planning and strategy. Either way, our mistake was to prescribe violence as a remedy to our issues in the Middle East, and not dialouge.

Luxifero

Originally posted by half_minded
I was being sarcastic. I thought you would understand that after the last sentence I wrote: "Sarcasm does not prove anything. "

Understood.

I don't think terrorists are not real. But we were talking about 9/11 and I certainly do believe US gov. did it.

I believe they played a part; I also believe the action part was played by terrorists.

Stop making assumptions. Terrorists are real, but not everything on the news is real. As for the videos, no proof that all of them are real. With today's technology you can easily make fake videos.

It wasn't an assumption; this reply proves as much.

If you doubt that if I have been to Iraq or not. Whhy should I belive you when you say you have? I merely added it in there for sarcasm. On an online discussion board, you never know anything about the other person for sure. You can only debate on known issues and speculate on your theories. Member's credibility is irrelevant because there is no way to verify it.

My credibility can be verified easily; if attempting to disprove my identity is the only way you can fight my knowledge, let's take it to the next level, I will gladly send a copy of my DD-214 to any of the ATS staff so they can verify my identity.

As to doubting your own presense in Iraq, in retrospect that's a line I shouldn't have crossed. However you claim to bear witness to soldiers targeting civilians which is completely false.

But if you get your take on the world from Mehr or al-Jazeera, I alone cannot convince you of this.

You are not targetting civilians, yet we have reports of thousands being dead.
And dont try to blame on the insurgents. Insurgents were in Iraq even before US invaded. The US made a mess of Iraq and people just cannot admit it so they try to blame everything on the insurgents. very convenient.

So it's the US's fault that one tribe can't stop blowing the other one up now that Saddam's out of power. Convenient.

You know for a fact? Please go and read everyday news. US drops bomb and innocent civilians die because of 'collateral damage'. Infact, out of every 100 they kill, 99 are innocent people.

I do know for a fact, because in the time spent there, my orders were never to kill civilians. But the 99/100 number is an interesting statistic, I'd like to see your reference. I don't rely on the media to tell me what to think; you said it yourself, "everything in the media is not real". Or does that only apply when it helps your case?

Your countries adminitration has a history of supplying weapons to countries. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were armed by US. When such countries fulfill their agenda, US runs in to disarm them and save the day. Also US has a history of 'making' terrorists to create cause for war or other purposes.

Again, removing all responsibility from the parties involved. There is no debate as to whether or not subversive elements of US policy create "movements", but the responsibility also lies with those whom actually carry the plans out.

If you agree that your administration is a sick joke, then why would you agree on anything it says to you.

I don't. Apparently the only parts of my posts you comprehend are those that show you to be wrong.

They have lied before and its very hard to say if they are telling the truth. Why not try and fix your own government first. Raise a voice against them. Stop them from going to war with countries. Stop them from putting military into other countries against the will of the people of those countries. Thats what creating 'terrorism'.

Voices are being raised. The difference is we in America are convinced that using the democratic process, even it's been fouled, is the only way for reform. The only other option is the route of the extremist, which is dishonorable and dirty.

If these countries want you out then why dont you leave.

Ask Bush, he's the "decider".



[edit on 17-10-2006 by Astygia]

Originally posted by Griff
So, Grady. Attacking the messenger instead of the message again?

Griff - it is very smart to investigate the messenger as well as the message. If the messenger is doubtful or corrupt, then the message itself is at the very least highly suspicious, if not totally unbelievable.

Example - Would you believe a story posted by World Net Daily, or would you automatically dismiss it unless there was multiple credible other sources to back it up?? Sometimes World Net Daily gets it right, but many times their stories are highly questionable at best. The reader looks at the track record of the source and makes an educated judgement based on the record of that source.

Heck .. if someone posted a Captial Hill Blue story expecting a serious discussion about it I'd laugh myself silly.

Fact is ... If a news source has dug it's own grave due to it's shoddy record, then the reader has a responsibility to automatically question the message. Heck .. it would be common sense NOT TO BELIEVE a source that has a history of serious problems.

I'm not surprised at all. Its all about oil, thats it. Their covering everything up and/or sugar-coating it for the American media to keep us all happy.

Its sickening. Hopefully when Bush's term is up this will end. But...something tells me it probably won't.

it's interesting that those who attack Ted Rall as uncredible share the same political slant and also fail to provide any credible support their assertion that he is not a credible journalist on the subject of the linked article. Hmmmm!

Astygia, you are deviating from the subject at hand. Not one time before your first post did half_minded bring into question anything about the current status of existence of the terrorists, or the role they may or may not have played on 9/11.

But I suppose bombing a whole neighborhood with a weapon that left hudnreds of CIVILIANS into chuncks of meat and piles of goo is justified because of 9/11 ...

Your initial post falls in line with disinformation tactic #17 cited in the thread Authored by Umbrax Here

half, I suggest you try and ignore comments that will sidetrack the topic at hand, as hard as it may be. We are already losing sight of the fact of the military abuses failing to be reported about from Afghanistan, which as far as I saw was what we were trying to talk about.

Now, are there any Afghani blogs out there from citizens of the country that can help us grasp a larger image of the truth and reality of it all? I understand it is one of the poorest and undeveloped nations of Central Asia, but there has to be a ray of truth eminating from there somewhere?

Originally posted by DYepes
Astygia, you are deviating from the subject at hand. Not one time before your first post did half_minded bring into question anything about the current status of existence of the terrorists, or the role they may or may not have played on 9/11.

When discussing the morality of the war, all facets of every event leading up to it come into question. The comments had been made that moving into Afghanistan were simply a cover...this is false.

But I suppose bombing a whole neighborhood with a weapon that left hudnreds of CIVILIANS into chuncks of meat and piles of goo is justified because of 9/11 ...

Did I say that? Nope. It seems you're deviating from the subject at hand.

Your initial post falls in line with disinformation tactic #17 cited in the thread Authored by Umbrax Here

I have not said one word of untruth. The tactics used to obfuscate an issue never cease to amaze me, however. Being labelled as "disinformation" is amusing.

Regardless, if what you're looking for is a sympathetic shoulder and mutual back-patting, you've got it. I'll bow out.

Here are some excerpts from one of the Afghani blogs I have found so far.

When U.S started war against Sadam hosein regime, the world and U.S attention diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, in some point they left their serious tasks uncompleted in order to get success in Iraq.

In the five years not only the terrorism eradicated but increased not only in Afghanistan but other Muslim countries. Unfortunately the security situation in both country Afghanistan and Iraq is getting worse. Suicide attacks increased in the capital, the continuing of this situation people think that they lost their dreams for peace and prosperity of their country.

The world and U.S made a mistake which thought Taliban after their fall has finished. Whereas they returned back to their religious schools. The United States underestimated the Taliban which recently the Coalition Forces accepted that they made a mistake. The United States and the world community never tried to talk and put pressure the Pakistan government that supporting the Taliban.
==================================================
The most important thing which nowadays people expecting from NATO forces is to avoid killing civilian as U.S forces had killed and destroyed many villages by air strike.
They say; how long this land should burn in fire and how long we should hear war and war. More than two decades of war, everything demolished.

Although I believe that no differ between U.S and forces and NATO being in Afghanistan but the most important things are to not experience the mistakes from previous. For the last years of American troops in southern Afghanistan nothing has changed rather than strengthening the Taliban and terrorists.

- NATO should pay attention in the following facts which are mostly sensitive for Afghanistan and its people.

- Training the Afghan National Army and Police which are mostly involved in smuggling and Mafia.

- Involving in helping and reconstruction and helping the repatriated refugees from neighboring countries.

Respecting the people’s religious believes and traditions which are very sensitive.

I believe if they pay attention in the above sentences and receive the experiences from American forces they will succeed if not, their destiny would be the same as coalition forces has experience in the past years.

He also goes on to describe many instances of civilians falling victim to suicide bombings, as well as the typical coalition casualty count for the posting day. One thing for sure, with the threat of death from merciless kamikazees, IED's, or unsympathetic Air strikes, it definetly sucks to be a civilian in Afghanistan.

Another blogger Afghan Warrior goes on to describe pretty much what we have been hearing. Most of the country is normal, people are living in peace, women are gaining equal rights.

I can not say wheteher either one is true or false. I am starting to believe that the only way for me to find the truth is to actually go there myself and find out for sure. Unfortunate that it has comw to that situation.

This thread reminds of that Monty Python skit , The Island of Lost Interviewers, where the reporters are stalking other reporters for an interview. Ted Rall did the very same thing, he reported what other reporters told him rather than do his own research and interviews. This contains about as much real substance as a commercial press release. I don't see how we can give Rall any more credence than any of the corporate media outlets.

I am sorry but I am completely unfamiliar with this Ted Rall, could anyone perhaps post any relevant facts that completely disprove his credential, preferabbly in the form of excerpt and source url?

Add-on: After doing a brief search, I have come to the conclusion that this man is quite likely a biggot, and perhaps rude. However, this does not necessarily take away anything he reports on his many trips to Central Asia as untrue. It only proves he is a rude biggot. We have many of those in positions of public service and journalism anyways, they just are not as open about it as he is apparantley.

His honesty may make him look bad, but it is honesty none-theless.

[edit on 10/17/2006 by DYepes]

Originally posted by Astygia

And you totally ignore the point where terrorists trained and supported by the Taliban flew planes into buildings on 9/11.

Astygia, you speak as if it were a fact that terrorists flew planes into buildings on 9/11? As a pilot with extensive background in aviation and flying large airplanes I find it hard to believe that a supposed terrorist flew those airplanes into those buildings. As a matter of fact based on my experience it would have been impossible for terrorists to have flown that profile. Do you have any evidence that terrorists flew these planes into those buildings (not counting Atta's passport) or how they might have learned to do that? Thanks.

Originally posted by Astygia
And you totally ignore the point where terrorists trained and supported by the Taliban flew planes into buildings on 9/11.

Actually, this is not factually correct. The hijackers were Saudis - if we assume that the names we have been given are correct - and they appear to have been financed by the ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Agency. I've just read some very interesting data on the Mad Cow News site that show that Mohammed Atta was involved in some very shady stuff in the flight school at Huffman Aviation in Florida. Why, for example, is the FBI so keen to cover up his relationship with a local girl, Amanda Keller? The site has interviews with her that make compelling viewing. Why were most of his friends in Florida German? Why was he getting his copious supplies of coc aine from the Air Force compound at the airfield? Why was the field locked down when the larger planes touched down?

You see, it's unfortunate, but the lies go back farther than Iraq. Preparations for the invasion of Afghanistan predate 9/11 by some months.

And Rall's article makes perfect sense: those who want to shoot the messenger also are desperate to ignore the message because it causes cognitive dissonance. They need to accept that the reality of the situation is different from their desires.

Im not exactlly sure how believable this story is...I feel that we dont know all that goes on over there and Im okay with that...Some stuff Id rather not know...when it effects me personally I will worry