It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 04:38 PM

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 04:53 PM
You thought they would allow un authorised news coverage of this spectacular event?

Thousands will be dieng but not according to CNN

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 07:58 PM
Of course...How better to get their own propaganda to be believed if they don't also take steps to eliminate other sources of info from reaching the ears of the US public?

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 08:03 PM
And there are those who believe that the government and thier approved information sources will actually tell you the truth????

Sort of like NASA is telling the truth about NEAT??? That the USGS says it was just a fault slide the other day???

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 09:10 AM
unfiltered news about troop movements, deployments, etc....going to the enemy also, now can you?

How is this different than any previous war? They've been warned... Same reason they shouldn't go skipping through minefields....

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:01 AM
I watched a news report a couple of months back that showed a private US firm that has launched its own surveillance satellite. Te report said this private technology would make it possible for the first time in history for private sources of information to be gathered about a war, in actual real time. As to whether the U.S. Administration would actually allow those images to be broadcast, is another matter.

The story showed some images that the satellite got of one of Saddams palaces. The photo was of his swimming pool, and so clear that the diving board was easily identified.

Interesting to see if this private firms satellite will be allowed to show what CNN may not show.


posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:04 AM
footage from such a satellite during war, while over a battlefield, is likely to have it's FCC license revoked, I'm sure....

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:17 AM
Nothing that makes them get blamed is gonna be public, or seeing in the CNN or ABC news....
They have to manage the media-opinion createad as always from "the public sources of info", such as newspapers tv or radio, they wont let all those programs show ppl the real stuff.... It has been obvious from centuries ago

If a huge tree is falling next to u, it will make a really strong noise and u will see how it falls, if now if u are 40 km far away u will not see it and wont hear it,
but that doesnt mean that the tree is not falling,
The matter of not seeying or hearing things doesnt mean that is not fact.

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:18 AM
Early Bird 1, the world's first commercial high-resolution surveillance satellite, was launched Dec. 24, offering close-up pictures of Earth that until now have been available only to the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Link -

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:24 AM
is some of these images of battlefields during the war, showing up on the internet...letting the enemy know where our troops, vehicles are, and endangering our soldiers... I too, would like to see the "real" news, but not at the expense of endangering our troops. That's a trade I'm just not willing to make...

posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 10:57 AM
If the satellite images aren't actually *broadcast* in real time, then how could they be comprising troop movements to the public? All it would take is a delay in broadcasting to avoid giving out such vital information...Yet, if the images aren't *edited* before broadcast, the public would still be able to get the truths of the war itself (Including Hussien's "WMD's that he doesn't have" being used against our troops).

If he claims not to have them, then he couldn't actually *use* them against our troops without risking such lies to become revealed world-wide...And to the UN!

In such a case, Hussien would have to "hold back", essentially giving our troops a bigger advantadge than they already have; The other side of the coin is that if he *doesn't* use any "WMD's that he doesn't have", then we'd know more about Bush's motives for the war, wouldn't we?

Also, if the owners of the satellite were to give the US ally troops any real-time info about Iraqi troop movements in the process, they could use that info to compare with their own intelligence reports & come up with better strategies...And any ground-based reporters (independant or not) would be less likely to "walk into a mine field"...

We still get the truth, the military doesn't have to worry about compromising info getting out in any way that would harm their strategies. Simply delaying broadcast to the public, without editing, sounds like a feasable compromise of "truthful knowledge vs. neccesary secrecy" to me...

[Edited on 11-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 04:14 AM
on this point you are right, they just keep the info, and show a bit, or a lie, or even nothing... no secrecy needed

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 04:46 AM
I dont think a backdrop of sand, in a huge lanscape of even more sand, would really give much away...
The reporters know the importance of not giving away positions, they aren't stupid. When I seen the topic of this thread I thought it would be about the army warning the press they might get shoot if they get in the way (I mean literally), which i could see the point to. They would just have had to move back a bit. The pentagon saying it would deliberately target the press's actual satellite uplinks is very worrying. Independant journalists have reported from the front line since journalsim existed, with varying degrees of censorship of course. I have heard arguments against it on the grounds of safety before, but this appears to have nothing to do with safety. But as the pentagon offical says "who cares, they've been warned"

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 08:32 AM
Let's see...People arrested merely for wearing "peace" t-shirts, now reporters getting threatened with guns...
Yep! Federal reppression of the First Amendment is now in full swing...

The Homeland Security Act in & of itself violates nearly the entire Bill of Rights as well as much of the main body of the Constitution itself...

Can we say, "Fascist State"?...I knew we could.

In reality, all Bush has to do is utter 2 little words (a total of 3 syllables) & we'll be in a Fascist *Police* State. People will be arrested without trial & no Rights, families will be broken up as people are moved around *forcefully*, public & private property will be confiscated without due process of law, media sources will come under *complete & unquestionable* control, elections will be banned, Congress can be banned, & Bush will disregard the UN completely without even so much as paying them any "lip service" & have the secular power that Hitler once wielded but with the backing of the most powerful & widespread military on Earth.

Scary thoughts? You betcha'! But for some reason, these thoughts don't put enough fear into The People to band together & get the government reformed...

[Edited on 12-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 10:53 AM
"We still get the truth, the military doesn't have to worry about compromising info getting out in any way that would harm their strategies. Simply delaying broadcast to the public, without editing, sounds like a feasable compromise of "truthful knowledge vs. neccesary secrecy" to me..."

Still, the military commanders need to be the ones to say what will, and what will not compromise troop safety, not reporters....

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:10 PM
And yet, the Pentagon is obviously not concerned about the safety of the independant reporters...At least not to the point where the Pentagon won't tell the troops not to *shoot them*! Seems kind of an oxymoron to show concern over their safety by threatening them with *fatal shooting*.

No, the Pentagon isn't concerned over *safety* issues, so anyone who mistakes their statement for such must not be listening.

However, yes, that's why I suggested a *delay* in broadcasting...As long as the military can designate a reasonable time delay, without having input as to the *content* of the final broadcast, then the media should be allowed to keep their satelittes *intact* instead of being shot down!

Can we say, "Unconstitutional use of force on private property"?...I knew we could...

new topics

top topics


log in