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.

 

Death Maths

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 01:09 PM
link   
(Firstly I would like to apologise if I bring things into this discussion that I read in an alternate post upon this forum, as two long pages of posts and it being 0520 are not a good, logical combination.)

The underlying topic is an interesting one and the commentary delivered would be just as such if it wasn't for the fact that people seem more interested in name calling. Accusing someone of being 'for' a terrorist state simply because they advocate a solution other than the use of force is, to be blunt, foolish. (Enter the hypocrisy)

To return to the topic; the use of such calculations, as given in the first post, are, at least as I see it, an attempt at ironically (perhaps a little humourously, although, there is nothing funny about civilian casualties) examing the effect of weaponary. Deploying massive amounts of even the smartest weapons will eventually result in civilian deaths. It is perhaps this that is the greatest cause for concern, civilians are an acceptable loss; this isn't to say that they've become targets but rather that governments are willing to trade the lives of the 'innocent' for the deaths of the 'guilty'.

Does this make the government (used generally) a heartless entity that kills, and lies about non-military damage, simply for the sake of it? No. There are generally acceptable reasons for the deaths of civilians, even if these situations are regretable. Why does the government attempt to 'cover up' such incidents? One cannot be sure, yet we can assume that those which makes such decisions are privy to a substantially higher degree of information than the majority (Hell, I'll go out on a limb and say all) of us. (Us used in reference to those that post here, including the guy that strips for a photographer every day.)

This raises yet another question; are these deaths truly justifiable? The answer to this question is one that every person really has to find for themselves. Personally I believe that there are situations in which the sacrifice of innocents is necessary for the greater good. Would I sacrifice those that I know and love to save the lives of people that I don't? To this question, in all honesty, I would answer no, for most situations.

The death of civilians can very easily be turned into propaganda, particularly to groups which are held under the sway of powerful, politically, or for that matter religiously, aligned entities. Taking an exam that will perhaps make me unpopular with some, is the American (I guess most Western countries in which the news media constitutes the majority of information) public. The death of one American is many times the loss compared to that of a Somali man. By playing upon the association that the American has with other Americans it can easily be 'blown out of proportion.' It is likely that those which control the nations we're trying to "help" can use a similar form of propaganda to portray 'us' as an evil entity.

I think I'll leave it there for now, I should probably go to sleep but I'm simply not tired.


(A final thought MT69: Were the American news networks the ones that told you about their unbiased reporting or was it an external source?)




posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The US supports freedom of the press and it has more media outlets than others around the world, thus it's safe to say you'll get a better balance here in the US...especially with our satellite TV carrying media newscasts from Canada, Mexico, Russia, Germany, Japan, and England from what I've seen.



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Diversity is the basis of being well informed I guess.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 03:39 AM
link   
MT69

You can say whatever you want, but still I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong, and I know you can't so please keep your comment away, because it doesn't mean jack to me if you have access to classified info or not.

Your problem is that you think you know everything about someone else you don't even know, I advice you to have more respect for things you don't know, and stop spreading disinfo on this board.



[Edited on 22-1-2003 by TigeriS]


TN1

posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 06:15 AM
link   
MT69,
I have to ask you something ,
Do you know what is the difference between genius and stupidity ??
Genius has its limits.....

Keep walking,....



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 12:36 PM
link   
TN1 - You don't say anything here to act as if you're smart, but then do a drive-by talking smack about people actually posting on this board.

You're like the dumb kid in the classroom that sits in the back of the room saying nothing but rolling his eyes at the rest of the class trying to act smart, but deep down knows he can't speak out for fear of being found to be THE idiot in the room.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MT69
The US supports freedom of the press and it has more media outlets than others around the world,



There are many here who will argue against this basic statement. I won't take the obvious route.

Please explain how our US media will be balanced since they are driven by the need for corporate profit. They must run the stories that attract viewers so they can charge more for the 30 seconds the sell advertisers.

To me, that seems a formula for off-balance.

Help us understand your position.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Our media is FREE from Govt control for one thing, so that takes a lot of bias out of the equation compared to other countries around the world.

Since the media is private, it must put out a quality product in order to stay alive. Americans won't buy your news if it's not trustworthy like a tabloid magazine. That is another part of the equation that makes it un-biased overall.

Since Americans fall on the right and left of the political spectrum, there are media outlets that cater to each side....thus both sides of the issue are covered here in the US. I can find one newspaper promoting war with Iraq and another one promoting no war. Can you say this about Iraq???



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MT69
Since the media is private, it must put out a quality product in order to stay alive. Americans won't buy your news if it's not trustworthy like a tabloid magazine. That is another part of the equation that makes it un-biased overall.


You believe the US media to be a "quality product"?

Certainly, this is sarcasm.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Lemme guess, you're coming to us from England....home of the tabloid media. Other Brits on this board admit their general public reads more tabloid news than real news...so maybe that explains you.

Oh, are you going to duck my questions about UBL in the other thread???? I guess you can't explain how us helping muslims in various countries meant us sticking our nose in their business.

[Edited on 22-1-2003 by MT69]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Keep this on topic guys...

less of the insults at each other,

Asala


(lol lol im so dumb!! i hit the lucky dip button for random threads...and got this from 2003)
i forgot i hit the button and though i had better step in and mod this lol)




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join