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.

 

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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I have come to the conclusion that the "war on terror" is a hoax and a power grab for oil control in the middle east.


Gas prices are comming down just in time for people to vote the republicans back into office. After that gas prices will skyrocket again.




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
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.



I think Half_Minded's point was that terrorism isn't as an important an issue as you think.

For example between 44,000 and 98,000 people die of medical errors each year - a bulk of which involve medication.



That is a lot more than Terrorism related deaths in America. Yet terrorism is on the front page every day - brainwashing? Fear mongering?

The point is you have more of a likely hood of getting struck by lightning then being killed by a terrorist.

link

[edit on 17-10-2006 by tha stillz]

[edit on 17-10-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The entire American led WAR ON TERROR, has been nothing short of a disaster..

..its like using a flamethrower to fight a forest fire.


IMO it has been so hopelessly counter-productive that therein lies the conspiracy.

Fan the flames of war to bring on the NWO.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I have come to the conclusion that the "war on terror" is a hoax and a power grab for oil control in the middle east.


Well, I hate to say it, but there is truth to this. Though, Afghanistan does not have oil, like Iraq, it does contain a large amount of land. US businesses are buying out Afghan land for construction. My parent's original home (the land as well) in Afghanistan was some very wanted land, because it was close to the city of Kabul. We were offered 1.2 million (US) for the land, but did not sell it, because a family had already moved into the home, after we fled Afghanistan as refugees during Russia's invasion.

When my parents returned to Afghanistan, they found their home and found another family had been using it for 20+ years. My parents were kind and let the family live there without selling off the land.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
About the author




Ted Rall
In 1996, he was one of three Finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. He was the New York Times’ most reprinted cartoonist in 1997 and 1999, and began doing color strips for both Time Magazine and Fortune Magazine in 1998. He was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for his cartoons.

Rall received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons. The award, founded in 1968, recognizes distinguished work on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.

Ted’s searing prose manifesto of generational angst, Revenge of the Latchkey Kids (Workman Publishing, 1998), received widespread critical acclaim and established him as one of America’s leading spokespeople for his age group.


Look credible enough to me.

PS. Political cartoonists are quite often good journalists.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Well even if Ted Rall is a totally unreliable source it still makes a good point. All news networks these days seem to pump out the same news on war events in sync with eachother. I'm sure the government has a hand in censoring what is written on and what info is taken off the battlefield both for mission security and for reasons of cover-up. This would explain the blah blah news reporting that we get due to restrictions on info release and the source being the same military PR guy.


Originally posted by Astygia


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?


Well I'd have to agree no ground troops are probably directly ordered to kill innocent civilians however it doesn't take much imagination to figure what a daisy cutter dropped in a residential neighborhood is going to do to the residents and their neighbors. Our massive use of heavy munitions in civilian areas in the last 3-4 yrs of conflict I'm sure has had its toll and the numbers have to be bad.





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


Wow...now this is news to me. I'd hafta jump on the John Lear bandwagon here.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   
The thrust of Ted Rall's piece seems to be an indictment of the journalists in Afghanistan. He lambastes them for being green, wet-behind-the-ears, and easily conned out of their money. They don't know the local geography, and they pay too much for a ride.

From this we are to conclude that the WOT is a joke. Also woven into this conclusion are the theories that the American gov't was responsible for bringing down the twin towers, and Iraqi casualty figures are vastly under-reported.

Rall should have titled his article "Why I am so much more believable than the green network weenies - my own opinion". Then he could have been called honest, if only for this one article.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
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.


Don't bother. I only come here to discuss issues and not discuss the members. As I said, member credibility is irrelevant. How does that equate to me trying to disprove your indentity?


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


I never said that. I get my take from lot of different sources and I try to piece everyhting together.


Originally posted by Astygia
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.


First of all they are not tribes. Shia and Sunni are two different sects of Islamic faith. They differ in thier beliefs in some ways. Anyway, thats not important. Point is, It is the US's fault. Atleast Saddam could control these people. Now these parties are fighting against each other just so that they can be the new ruling party of Iraq. They have nothing to do with religiog. They are only hungry for power. US knew this would happen. They knew they were starting a war which would mess up Iraq even more than before. So ya It is the US's fault.


Originally posted by Astygia
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?


Ofcourse you are not targeting them. But you dont care to open fire at a 'terrorist' even though if it means killing civilians. You dont hesitate to drop bombs knowing that you would be killing civilians in the process. The statistic was made up just to give an example. Its obviously not from a news source. I thought that would be very clear. And what about the rape, murder accusations against soldiers. Im sure you dont speak for the entire US military. You may not be targeting civilians but that does not mean other are not. Maybe others dont even care that they kill civilians as long as they can bag a terrorist.

[

Originally posted by Astygia
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.


So the US takes no responsibility for supplying weapons?
If a Kid goes shooting around in a school. The man who sold him the weapon would also be arrested. Both parties to blame. And US has a history of playing 'games' for its own agenda.


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


You dont. But you do support the war which was based on lies.


Originally posted by Astygia
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.


I never said you should take thed route to extremists. But you could start by atleast condemning the Iraq war which is based on lies.


Originally posted by Astygia
Ask Bush, he's the "decider".


One man cant be the decider. Its time americans spoke out openly against Bush and his foreign policies which are creating problems in the first place. As a US citizen if you cannot take responsibility for your president's actions then he might as well do watever he pleases whether the american public likes it not. HE is slowly stripping the citizens of their rights. But its ok because its only the terrorists being affected by it??



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded

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


err - OK , why did you believe this ???

you seem very easliy swayed -- basing your opinion of the entire media on one self agrandising account

BTW are you going to believe mr randall`s future output ? or has he hoisted himself by his own petard



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
half, I suggest you try and ignore comments that will sidetrack the topic at hand, as hard as it may be.


If I ignore the comments then people automatically assume that I am not able to reply back to them. Thats why prefer to keep stating that people stick to topic at hand.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
About the author




Ted Rall
In 1996, he was one of three Finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. He was the New York Times’ most reprinted cartoonist in 1997 and 1999, and began doing color strips for both Time Magazine and Fortune Magazine in 1998. He was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for his cartoons.

Rall received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons. The award, founded in 1968, recognizes distinguished work on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.

Ted’s searing prose manifesto of generational angst, Revenge of the Latchkey Kids (Workman Publishing, 1998), received widespread critical acclaim and established him as one of America’s leading spokespeople for his age group.


Look credible enough to me.

PS. Political cartoonists are quite often good journalists.


Poeple are still going to discredit Ted Rall because he does not help them support their views. Funny how people are quick to blame and accuse without doing research. I did not look much into Ted Rall personally, but it was his article that captivated me. Its a different look on the war then the usual daily NEWS crap we see on TV.

Anyway, those of you doubting Ted's credibility. There you have it.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by half_minded

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


err - OK , why did you believe this ???

you seem very easliy swayed -- basing your opinion of the entire media on one self agrandising account

BTW are you going to believe mr randall`s future output ? or has he hoisted himself by his own petard
[/quote

That was there only to get people's attention. No one would click on a boring title and read through something that sounds boring.

I always make my title 'controversial' or interesting and also add some comments which would spark an argument.

I definitely dont mean that I literally wont belive any NEWS. I simply mean that I would question the credibility of the news and the truthfullness of it.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kojac

The entire American led WAR ON TERROR, has been nothing short of a disaster..

..its like using a flamethrower to fight a forest fire.




GREAT line.


And great article. Well written, and well informed.

Thanks for the link.


imo Rall is right - if journalists don't know anything about the culture, people or area, why bother sending them? They don't see through the smoke-screens anyway. Why not drop the expensive illusions? Just use the emailed press releases and let the warlords use their own cameramen for their set-up shots.


.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
The US military is being used in Afghanistan to help protect and advance the opium trade. The poppy production has 'never' been greater. Terror in this case, comes in a small packet sold on the streets of Paris, London and Berlin.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Good point soficrow.


As an european i immediately believe someone describing the overseas US mainstream journalism that way. This should not be interpreted as a generalization, but those descriptions certainly fit to the common view of the us citizen, who does not need to know anything about other cultures. Why? Because he is american.

And what would be the fun of oversea-coverage if there wasn't a huge waste of money and a little bit of war adventure anyway?

Reminds me of those larger 3rd World Help Organisations.. they've got a HQ somewhere in Africa.. similar to a 4-Star Hotel.. including swimmingpools.
Driving around in Jeeps with some absolutely important Hightech Equipment.

Meanwhile the starving halfnaked native is biting on some of the metal equipments to verify if it might be edible until he gets waved off the car by some WWF-employees.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The fresh new trend in American political discourse is to discredit the 'experts.'

Experts being scientists, fist-hand observers and/or even people who inform themselves.

The opposition finds a way to mock them (i.e., Jay Leno's endless jokes about Hans Blix as a kind of Mr. Magoo for not being able to see nonexistent WMDs in 2002). And, of course, trashing John Kerry, who was awarded a silver star and bronze star for serving with honor for a year in the Vietnam theatre, while giving GWB a pass for flaking out on the last 2 years of his National Guard commitment.

So, it's no surprise that Ted Rall, who has spent many months througout the 'stans, living among the people there and reporting from combat areas, has to be published in a way fringe-y place. Rall is the real deal. I listened to his 'stan report on the local wacko right wing AM station for years until they finally purged all the non-righty voices.

As for people saying his piece is not about the WOT and is about corruption of journalists, well, they are not engaging their imaginations when reading. When Rall says daisy-cutters were dropped on civilian neighborhoods and the reports are not published in US media, that is a fact that directly links to what "informed" readers of those media think about the war.

It's easy to support a war if you think only the bad guys are being "precision targeted" and that the result is liberation for the Afghan people. Rall says neither is true, and he's there, on the ground, living among the Afghans. and based upon what I've heard from him in the past, going back to 2001, I'm inclined to believe his observations.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Originally posted by jsobecky




From this we are to conclude that the WOT is a joke. Also woven into this conclusion are the theories that the American gov't was responsible for bringing down the twin towers, and Iraqi casualty figures are vastly under-reported.

Rall should have titled his article "Why I am so much more believable than the green network weenies - my own opinion". Then he could have been called honest, if only for this one article.


And accurate in his conclusions.


L3X

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
usual stuff, something is true and otherwise not...
however we know that war on terror is a hoax but the facts mybe are not like these presented in that article
but a jew source?


[edit on 18-10-2006 by L3X]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I've read Mr. Rall's story and found it interesting but it definitely did not shock me or tend to convince me to "not believe any news" as the title of the post suggests (which would also require one to "not believe" Mr. Rall's news).

His story sounds credible and he appears to have adequate credentials. Taken as true, his story describes his personal view and experiences in Afghanistan. It certainly does not, however, stand for the proposition that all reporters in Afghanistan are not that competent, that all editors are editing out real news, or that the "real" news is still not getting out. It pays to get news from as many sources as possible.

On the ABC News website, of which I am truly no great fan, I easily found stories about civilians being killed in a U.S. attack, how members of an attacked village were burying women and children, that U.S. bombing hit a school and surrounding homes, that the Taliban were never rooted out that they are "better armed and organized into large-scale units" and how most women in Afghanistan still wear Burqas.
See for example:
abcnews.go.com...
abcnews.go.com...

I've read about the Uyghurs long before reading Mr. Rall's story; in fact, China is using the War on Terror to justify oppressing the Uyghurs.

The use of Daisycutters in Afghanistan is no secret.

Mr. Rall is human and appears to have his own biases as all other reporters do. He mentions in his story how he chooses not to go to press conferences and asks why would he go to the organized press conferences just to get lies. It is his personal choice -- but why not go? He cannot possibly know whether lies will or will not be told unless he first listens. Perhaps he can report what is being said at the press conferences and point out what appears to be true and not true according to what he is personally perceiving.

The point of the post appears biased too. It seems the crux of the post was to argue that America's official version of what is going on should not be listened to, that we should side with America's opponents. I prefer to listen to as much information as I can obtain and make up my own mind.

It seems like those that think Al-Jazeera's reporting is all true are biased. It likewise seems that those that think the 11:00 news on T.V. in America is all true are biased. I suspect in both cases that some things are true, some false, and some facts omitted.

In the end, the conclusion, I believe, is not to summarily dismiss all news but to eagerly search out as much news as one can find.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarney
I've read Mr. Rall's story and found it interesting but it definitely did not shock me or tend to convince me to "not believe any news" as the title of the post suggests (which would also require one to "not believe" Mr. Rall's news).


Please read my above posts and see that I did not mean it literally. I always choose such titles because they tend to attract more attention. The title is not so important to me but the content within.


Originally posted by Blarney
His story sounds credible and he appears to have adequate credentials. Taken as true, his story describes his personal view and experiences in Afghanistan. It certainly does not, however, stand for the proposition that all reporters in Afghanistan are not that competent, that all editors are editing out real news, or that the "real" news is still not getting out. It pays to get news from as many sources as possible.


You are right. Thats what I try to do to. Get news from lot of sources. But its pieces of news like these that deserve attention on a website for conspiracies.


Originally posted by Blarney
On the ABC News website, of which I am truly no great fan, I easily found stories about civilians being killed in a U.S. attack, how members of an attacked village were burying women and children, that U.S. bombing hit a school and surrounding homes, that the Taliban were never rooted out that they are "better armed and organized into large-scale units" and how most women in Afghanistan still wear Burqas.


Why would US bomb a school. Even if a terrorist was hiding in one, surely they cannot bomb schools and kill hundreds of children!


Originally posted by Blarney
The use of Daisycutters in Afghanistan is no secret.


And we all know the damage it can cause and the radius of effect.


Originally posted by Blarney
Mr. Rall is human and appears to have his own biases as all other reporters do. He mentions in his story how he chooses not to go to press conferences and asks why would he go to the organized press conferences just to get lies. It is his personal choice -- but why not go? He cannot possibly know whether lies will or will not be told unless he first listens. Perhaps he can report what is being said at the press conferences and point out what appears to be true and not true according to what he is personally perceiving.


Yes he is human with his own views. But people are quick to discredit him because he has different views from them. I disagree with his generalization of ill-informed reporters but his reasoning does seem applicable and probable to big news network reporters. Also, him not going to the press conference was a bad move, which he should have known can be used to discredit him.


Originally posted by Blarney
The point of the post appears biased too. It seems the crux of the post was to argue that America's official version of what is going on should not be listened to, that we should side with America's opponents. I prefer to listen to as much information as I can obtain and make up my own mind.


I had no such intentions while making the post. Why do people keep forgetting that this is a conspiracy website and there are a huge number of conspiracies revolving around 9/11 and the events following it. So if I post an article that is not all perfectly aligned with your beliefs does not mean it cannot be true. Why do people always scoff at me and call me american-basher or anti-american when the only thing I am against is the US government. If I try to post theories and evidences backing my claim then the right thing to do is to try and refute my arguments with your own evidences and theories rather than personally atacking me or my posts.



Originally posted by Blarney
It seems like those that think Al-Jazeera's reporting is all true are biased. It likewise seems that those that think the 11:00 news on T.V. in America is all true are biased. I suspect in both cases that some things are true, some false, and some facts omitted.

In the end, the conclusion, I believe, is not to summarily dismiss all news but to eagerly search out as much news as one can find.


I am in no way biased to any news. As my title suggests, that is exactly what I was implying as you have very aptly explained. I wish more people actually thought like that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join