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.
The News That Is Kept From You
page: 1share:
Article by the great Robert Fisk.
I watch a lot of CBC, BBC and CNN (predominantly CNN among the US networks, but occassionally also some ABC and CBS), and it's totally shocking to see the absolute propaganda control that the American networks seem to work under.
I saw on CNN a little while ago that Wolf Blitzer corrected this guy who called the Iraqi resistance "freedom fighters." Wolf Blitzer corrected him and said "We are supposed to call them "Insurgents".". The guest said, "Who tells you to say this?" Wolf said "You know, the higher-ups".
Very telling exchange. Whether it's editorial controls or governmental. this is not freedom of the press.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
"Insurgents or protesters? 18 are killed in clashes with US troops
By Robert Fisk in Baghdad
17 December 2003: (The Independent) While Washington and London were still congratulating themselves on the capture of Saddam Hussein, US troops have shot dead at least 18 Iraqis in the streets of three major cities in the country.
Dramatic videotape from the city of Ramadi 75 miles west of Baghdad showed unarmed supporters of Saddam Hussein being gunned down in semi-darkness as they fled from Americans troops. Eleven of the 18 dead were killed by the Americans in Samarra to the north of Baghdad.
All the killings came during demonstrations by Sunni Muslims against the American seizure of Saddam, protests that started near Samarra on Monday evening. The first demonstrators blocked roads north of Baghdad when armed men appeared alongside civilians who believed - initially - that US forces had arrested one of Saddam's doubles rather than the ex-dictator of Iraq. But their jubilation turned to fury when the Americans opened fire in Samarra a few hours later.
As usual, the American military claimed that all 18 dead were "insurgents" and that US forces had come under fire in all three cities. But this is what they claimed in Samarra just over two weeks ago when they boasted they had shot 54 "terrorists". Journalists investigating the killings concluded then that while US forces in the city had been ambushed while taking currency notes to two banks in the city, the only victims of American gunfire that could be confirmed were nine civilians, one of them a child, another an Iranian pilgrim....
Here's another great Fisk article that goes into detail about that bus attack a day or so ago. You owe it to yourself to get news and perspective from different sources.
www.bestofdesign.co.uk...
"Robert Fisk: Another bomb creates its obscene theatre in Baghdad"
I watch a lot of CBC, BBC and CNN (predominantly CNN among the US networks, but occassionally also some ABC and CBS), and it's totally shocking to see the absolute propaganda control that the American networks seem to work under.
I saw on CNN a little while ago that Wolf Blitzer corrected this guy who called the Iraqi resistance "freedom fighters." Wolf Blitzer corrected him and said "We are supposed to call them "Insurgents".". The guest said, "Who tells you to say this?" Wolf said "You know, the higher-ups".
Very telling exchange. Whether it's editorial controls or governmental. this is not freedom of the press.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
"Insurgents or protesters? 18 are killed in clashes with US troops
By Robert Fisk in Baghdad
17 December 2003: (The Independent) While Washington and London were still congratulating themselves on the capture of Saddam Hussein, US troops have shot dead at least 18 Iraqis in the streets of three major cities in the country.
Dramatic videotape from the city of Ramadi 75 miles west of Baghdad showed unarmed supporters of Saddam Hussein being gunned down in semi-darkness as they fled from Americans troops. Eleven of the 18 dead were killed by the Americans in Samarra to the north of Baghdad.
All the killings came during demonstrations by Sunni Muslims against the American seizure of Saddam, protests that started near Samarra on Monday evening. The first demonstrators blocked roads north of Baghdad when armed men appeared alongside civilians who believed - initially - that US forces had arrested one of Saddam's doubles rather than the ex-dictator of Iraq. But their jubilation turned to fury when the Americans opened fire in Samarra a few hours later.
As usual, the American military claimed that all 18 dead were "insurgents" and that US forces had come under fire in all three cities. But this is what they claimed in Samarra just over two weeks ago when they boasted they had shot 54 "terrorists". Journalists investigating the killings concluded then that while US forces in the city had been ambushed while taking currency notes to two banks in the city, the only victims of American gunfire that could be confirmed were nine civilians, one of them a child, another an Iranian pilgrim....
Here's another great Fisk article that goes into detail about that bus attack a day or so ago. You owe it to yourself to get news and perspective from different sources.
www.bestofdesign.co.uk...
"Robert Fisk: Another bomb creates its obscene theatre in Baghdad"
I would say that the correspondent was correct.
The people supporting Saddam or following extremist religious agendas certainly are not "freedom fighters".
Would you say that Saddam ran a free society? Or that Iran is a free society?
If the media called them "freedom fighters" they would be telling lies. Isn't it natural then for them to be cautioned about refraining from lying?
The media is supposed to tell the truth. There have been enough people criticising that the truth has been with-held over the past few months. Why criticise when somebody finally tells them to tell the truth?
The people supporting Saddam or following extremist religious agendas certainly are not "freedom fighters".
Would you say that Saddam ran a free society? Or that Iran is a free society?
If the media called them "freedom fighters" they would be telling lies. Isn't it natural then for them to be cautioned about refraining from lying?
The media is supposed to tell the truth. There have been enough people criticising that the truth has been with-held over the past few months. Why criticise when somebody finally tells them to tell the truth?
...in the propaganda machine of the US. We have no free media.
While "freedom fighters" for Saddam loyalists is not accurate, neither is "insurgents". That term give the Occupying forces Carte Blanche to kill indiscriminately.
There are freedom fighters in Iraq, by the legitimate definition of the word. That they will be labeled inapproprately and all lumped together is inevitable.
While "freedom fighters" for Saddam loyalists is not accurate, neither is "insurgents". That term give the Occupying forces Carte Blanche to kill indiscriminately.
There are freedom fighters in Iraq, by the legitimate definition of the word. That they will be labeled inapproprately and all lumped together is inevitable.
They're fighting for freedom from an oppressive occupying power, they're "freedom fighters". Or they're "mujaheddin".
Whatever. The news media should NOT be telling people what terms are correct. Wolf Blitzer is a media whore, but he still shouldn't correct someone who calls these guys "freedom fighters".
Free press and all that.
Whatever. The news media should NOT be telling people what terms are correct. Wolf Blitzer is a media whore, but he still shouldn't correct someone who calls these guys "freedom fighters".
Free press and all that.
Originally posted by Leveller
I would say that the correspondent was correct.
The people supporting Saddam or following extremist religious agendas certainly are not "freedom fighters".
Would you say that Saddam ran a free society? Or that Iran is a free society?
If the media called them "freedom fighters" they would be telling lies. Isn't it natural then for them to be cautioned about refraining from lying?
The media is supposed to tell the truth. There have been enough people criticising that the truth has been with-held over the past few months. Why criticise when somebody finally tells them to tell the truth?
That is seen through the eyes of the Americans. Let's change it around. Say, for example, China sent 130,000 troops to America to oust Bush(without asking the American People about it first). Bush goes into hiding, and the Chinese troops stay. During their time in America, Chinese troops sporadically open fire on American civilians. Well, The Montana Freemen, or the Illinois Militia, or some other organization begins retalitory attacks against the Chinese, setting up ambushes and such.
Would these men be considered "insurgents", or freedom fighters, especially in the eyes of Americans? The Chinese media would definitely portray them as "insurgents", especially to the rest of the world.
Its all dependent on what side you are on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Something like that.
Jakomo,
You don't consider the government owned CBC to be propaganda?
just wondering.
You don't consider the government owned CBC to be propaganda?
just wondering.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Article by the great Robert Fisk.
I watch a lot of CBC, BBC and CNN (predominantly CNN among the US networks, but occassionally also some ABC and CBS), and it's totally shocking to see the absolute propaganda control that the American networks seem to work under.
I saw on CNN a little while ago that Wolf Blitzer corrected this guy who called the Iraqi resistance "freedom fighters." Wolf Blitzer corrected him and said "We are supposed to call them "Insurgents".". The guest said, "Who tells you to say this?" Wolf said "You know, the higher-ups".
Very telling exchange. Whether it's editorial controls or governmental. this is not freedom of the press.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
"Insurgents or protesters? 18 are killed in clashes with US troops
By Robert Fisk in Baghdad
17 December 2003: (The Independent) While Washington and London were still congratulating themselves on the capture of Saddam Hussein, US troops have shot dead at least 18 Iraqis in the streets of three major cities in the country.
Dramatic videotape from the city of Ramadi 75 miles west of Baghdad showed unarmed supporters of Saddam Hussein being gunned down in semi-darkness as they fled from Americans troops. Eleven of the 18 dead were killed by the Americans in Samarra to the north of Baghdad.
All the killings came during demonstrations by Sunni Muslims against the American seizure of Saddam, protests that started near Samarra on Monday evening. The first demonstrators blocked roads north of Baghdad when armed men appeared alongside civilians who believed - initially - that US forces had arrested one of Saddam's doubles rather than the ex-dictator of Iraq. But their jubilation turned to fury when the Americans opened fire in Samarra a few hours later.
As usual, the American military claimed that all 18 dead were "insurgents" and that US forces had come under fire in all three cities. But this is what they claimed in Samarra just over two weeks ago when they boasted they had shot 54 "terrorists". Journalists investigating the killings concluded then that while US forces in the city had been ambushed while taking currency notes to two banks in the city, the only victims of American gunfire that could be confirmed were nine civilians, one of them a child, another an Iranian pilgrim....
Here's another great Fisk article that goes into detail about that bus attack a day or so ago. You owe it to yourself to get news and perspective from different sources.
www.bestofdesign.co.uk...
"Robert Fisk: Another bomb creates its obscene theatre in Baghdad"
Fisk is great. The mainstream media and network news organizations are beneath contempt, if not utterly laughable in their non-content.
Would these men be considered "insurgents", or freedom fighters, especially in the eyes of Americans? The Chinese media would definitely
portray them as "insurgents", especially to the rest of the world.
Well lets point out a couple differences between Saddam's Iraq, and Bush's America. Saddam has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's for disagreeing with him, Bush has not. Saddam does not allow freedom of the press, Bush does. Its obvious from this that China invading the US WOULD be bull# and anyone fighting against them would be a freedom fighter.
I looked at that link at the top of the page, and saw that it goes to an obviously biased website. What a crock of #.
[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Langolier]
Well lets point out a couple differences between Saddam's Iraq, and Bush's America. Saddam has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's for disagreeing with him, Bush has not. Saddam does not allow freedom of the press, Bush does. Its obvious from this that China invading the US WOULD be bull# and anyone fighting against them would be a freedom fighter.
I looked at that link at the top of the page, and saw that it goes to an obviously biased website. What a crock of #.
[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Langolier]
TheNeo: Considering that every time you have a wacko assertion and I ask you to prove it, you do nothing, I'm not going to answer your question.
"You don't consider the government owned CBC to be propaganda?
"
Also because it's a stupid question.
j
"You don't consider the government owned CBC to be propaganda?
"
Also because it's a stupid question.
j
Originally posted by evildoer
Its all dependent on what side you are on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Something like that.
Exactly.
Would these men be considered "insurgents", or freedom fighters, especially in the eyes of Americans? The Chinese media would definitely portray them as "insurgents", especially to the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Langolier
Well lets point out a couple differences between Saddam's Iraq, and Bush's America. Saddam has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's for disagreeing with him, Bush has not. Saddam does not allow freedom of the press, Bush does. Its obvious from this that China invading the US WOULD be bull# and anyone fighting against them would be a freedom fighter.
I looked at that link at the top of the page, and saw that it goes to an obviously biased website. What a crock of #.
[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Langolier]
This is true, there are big differences between our countries. I'm only saying that the Iraqi people didn't "ask" to be free; they didn't call on the help of the Americans to free them from that crackhead Hussein. So in the eyes of Iraqi's, the people carrying out attacks against our boys will be seen most likely as "freedom fighters".
They did ask before, but rather than help them, we did them in the ass and watched from across the boarder as Saddam slaughtered them. The Iraqi's
new better than to ask for help. If they asked for help in removing Saddam, Saddam would murder them. Also, as far as I know (and granted, I havent
been to Iraq) it is a minority of Iraqis that are taking up arms against the US. And most of these 'insurgents' are in long time 'pro-Saddam"
neighborhoods. While many Iraqis may want the US to leave, wich is understandable. They acknowledge that the US cant leave until a stabe government
and infrastructure is in place.
Anyone looking at the situation dispassionately has to conclude that those our government refers to as insurgents or deadenders fit the definition of
freedom fighter. They are nationalists fighting to rid the occupiers. We didn't call the Afghani Mujahadeen terrorists during the Afghan-Soviet war.
At the time they were described as freedom fighters. Same thing. Donald Rumsfeld is too much of hubristic arsehole to bother with that little truth.
Perhaps some of them are "freedom fighters" 'cough' 'gag'. However any that are fighting in the name of Saddam certainly arent. Nazi guerillas
fighting after WW2 ended were certainly not 'freedom fighters'. Hmm, perhaps they are. Perhaps the term 'freedom fighter' needs a different
definition.
Originally posted by Langolier
Perhaps some of them are "freedom fighters" 'cough' 'gag'. However any that are fighting in the name of Saddam certainly arent. Nazi guerillas fighting after WW2 ended were certainly not 'freedom fighters'. Hmm, perhaps they are. Perhaps the term 'freedom fighter' needs a different definition.
Which Nazi guerrilla's are you referring to? I have never heard of Nazis fighting After the war.
Well, I dont believe there were that many. However there WERE attacks on Allied troops in germany after the war. Some jeeps had metal bars sticking up
in front of the jeep to cut wire that were hung across streets to decapitate allied soldiers as they road by.
Originally posted by Langolier
Well, I dont believe there were that many. However there WERE attacks on Allied troops in germany after the war. Some jeeps had metal bars sticking up in front of the jeep to cut wire that were hung across streets to decapitate allied soldiers as they road by.
Those incidents were rare.
By definition, our founding fathers could have been called terrorists by the British, who ruled us until the Revolution ended.
Despite the fact that Saddam was a vicious man and brutal dictator, he was still the leader of Iraq - and those Iraqis who fight against the occupation are not terrorists. They are no different from those new Americans that fought to throw off the shackles of British occupation. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways, Langolier. They are fighting to free their country from outside rule.
Ok so you are saying we should call the Iragi resistance "Freedom Fighters"..... Or call them whatever we want. You are missing the point here.
Calling these people Freedom fighters is just not right. I want to put your ass over seas and let them shoot at you and then you call them freedom
fighters. Calling these poor example for humans freedom fighters is like calling the Nazi's religous purifactors... Sure they are fighting for
something.. and that is to be terrorist. They want to carry out these acts and kill americans because they can. If they knew half of what the US is
putting on the line so that they can have real "freedom" they would only help us out. That is all i have to say
[Edited on 19-12-2003 by Dravenn]
[Edited on 19-12-2003 by Dravenn]
Originally posted by Dravenn
Ok so you are saying we should call the Iragi resistance "Freedom Fighters"..... Or call them whatever we want. You are missing the point here. Calling these people Freedom fighters is just not right. I want to put your ass over seas and let them shoot at you and then you call them freedom fighters. Calling these poor example for humans freedom fighters is like calling the Nazi's religous purifactors... Sure they are fighting for something.. and that is to be terrorist. They want to carry out these acts and kill americans because they can. If they knew half of what the US is putting on the line so that they can have real "freedom" they would only help us out. That is all i have to say
[Edited on 19-12-2003 by Dravenn]
Just one original thought, please.
Dravenn, I did my time during the Gulf war, so please step off that tired line. Were you there? Have you ever been there? Trust me, no one wanted to put a bullet between the weasley eyes of Saddam more than this old soldier. Do you know what that's like?
You can call the insurgents whatever you like, for all I care. Just don't tell me, you "freedom lover" that Iraqis don't have a right to fight for their own independence. Just what exactly do you think Americans would do if Russia and China invaded the U.S. ? Hmm? If they controlled the world press and said our insurgents were terrorists? Whoever controls the press and educational institutions obviously control the message. So, keep on relaying that establishment line... I don't know who you're convincing.
[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]
new topics
-
Why does humanity accept bad leaders?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago -
BLACK AMERICA is Moving towards TRUMP After Being Used-Abused-Insulted by President BIDEN.
2024 Elections: 9 hours ago -
Sheriff: Up to 10 people shot at Rochester Hills splash pad; gunman 'contained'
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago -
Would you sacrifice your heart?
General Chit Chat: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Biden Has Not Connected One Person with High-Speed Internet
US Political Madness: 13 hours ago, 13 flags -
Sheriff: Up to 10 people shot at Rochester Hills splash pad; gunman 'contained'
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 11 flags -
Madness in Manchester! At todays protest
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 8 flags -
Would you sacrifice your heart?
General Chit Chat: 11 hours ago, 5 flags -
BLACK AMERICA is Moving towards TRUMP After Being Used-Abused-Insulted by President BIDEN.
2024 Elections: 9 hours ago, 4 flags -
Understanding the Biblical story of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac...
Conspiracies in Religions: 13 hours ago, 3 flags -
Why does humanity accept bad leaders?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
For 75 Years Cultural Marxism Worked to Destroy American Patriotism
New World Order • 40 • : Solvedit -
Why does humanity accept bad leaders?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 14 • : andy06shake -
Supercomputer Predicts Biden vs Trump Debate Outcome
US Political Madness • 112 • : KrustyKrab -
Rishi Sunak to announce UK General Election on July 4th?
Political Issues • 277 • : SprocketUK -
Infowars fighting attempted shutdown
Posse Comitatus • 257 • : Kurokage -
Football Euro 2024
World Sports • 115 • : andy06shake -
Woke Leftist dems, hate Your Rights and the Country;
Political Issues • 67 • : ADVISOR -
Understanding the Biblical story of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac...
Conspiracies in Religions • 6 • : FlyersFan -
Be Afraid... Be very Afraid
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 46 • : AdultMaleHumanUK -
Would you sacrifice your heart?
General Chit Chat • 6 • : BrotherKinsMan