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, 26 2003 @ 01:11 AM

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 01:29 AM
Bravo, an excellent article, I used it in my own site...

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 01:48 AM
Glad you enjoyed it, I just hope it helps more people open their eyes and not take everything as it appears.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:11 AM
Lysergic,Excellent find.This is a must read for every member here.I hope all visitors read it.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:13 AM
Credit goes to Kai-Raega, he sent me the linkage.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:52 PM
Very interesting article but sorry this woman doesn't necessarily know the truth more than anyone else. I'll be the first to admit that the news media is very biased and do not provide the entire story, but on the other hand this woman is biased in the exact opposite way. She shouldn't have made her green uniform argument at the beginning because I think that was one of her weakest arguments. The executed soldiers were not in a combatative role therefore not necessarily wearing the desert fatigues. They have shown footage of soldiers in this war already wearing their green fatigues.Her point about Michael Moore not being booed was based on what she called three second network news footage, and I have talked to several people who watched it live and they agree that the boos outnumbered the applause, not basing their opinions on news coverage but viewing it live. Another point of hers was a Russian radio interceptor hearing Tommy Franks say that he is worried about what will happen in Baghdad. Well I intercepted Saddam saying that he cant wait to use his chemical weapons when we get to Baghdad. Do you believe me? What is the difference? She does make some points and provides links to validate her claims, but does that mean everything she claims is true?

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:42 PM
I agree with you 100%.

I did happen to catch the awards show live and heard a lot of boos and very little applause, and this was live TV.
Like ProudAmerican stated, she does bring up some valid concerns, however, to me, she has no credibility due to the fact that I witnessed the awards show and her statement does not coincide with what I perceived.

Excellent post Proud

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:45 PM
and did you notice the classic liberal fall back when refering to conservatives? you can't just put their names, you always have to add some kind of unsubstantiated insult. example: Bruce "send me to iraq mr. bush" willis, Arnold "testosterone challenged" Schwartzenegar. on my crediblilty meter this woman rates a big negative 100. are you sure this site isn't funded by the DNC? or maybe michael moore makes large contributions.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:48 PM
To me this seems to come from an anti-conservative pro-liberal website. Only a liberal would make up a story like that. I highly doubt that this is true.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:03 PM
It seems that the first thing people do is to put a label on the person who writes the message, that allows the posters to reject out of hand the messsage.

Its actions like this that close minds, and make people narrow minded.

There is truth in all honestly held sides, you ARE being lied to, your emotions, your society IS being expertly manipulated. Sometimes people you don't agree with may see the truth more than you do yourself in your close minded blinkered life view....

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 09:00 PM
Everyone I have spoken to, who saw the live broadcast of the Oscars, agreed that the boos far outnumbered the applause. And this was more than an audio "trick", as the video footage also belies her claims (i.e. even without sound, you can tell who's booing and who's applauding).

As for other instances, I find it extremely hard to believe that EVERY network, during a live feed, is "conspiring" to edit out the jeers (not to mention, that these sound guys must be almost psychic to do so)....

The soldiers were MAINTENENCE soldiers. In other footage, such troops are in green uniforms, as they are not combat troops, and do not wear the desert camo...

Her assessment of the war is likewise dumbfounded. I'm assuming she lacks the necessary math skills to compare the Coalition 60 KIA and 7 POWs, to the Iraqi THOUSANDS KIA and THOUSANDS of Iraqi POWs...and the fact that we own all of Iraqi airspace, and continue to bomb targets at will....

This woman is living in fantasy land...let's hope she isn't late for her tea party with the Mad Hatter, shall we?

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 09:40 PM
Though I wasn't watching the Oscars at the time Michael Moore used his acceptance as a forum against the gov't, one thing that must be realized is that this is Hollywood, the home of movie magic. If there was any sort of time delay (like the 7 second delay on the radio), in case of profanity, these movie geniuses (sp) could easily splice in boos.

As far as the link, definitely makes you think, but one thing I have to disagree with are the fatigues that the soldiers are wearing. The Brits very distinguishable in there desert kit, but the US forces seem to be wearing drabs as well as deserts. Pictures on the CNN website(I know, I know) have US soldiers and the greens and just a little bit ago on CNN, one of the embedded media were talking with soldiers wearing both.....

posted on Mar, 27 2003 @ 04:09 AM
your one step ahead of me LOL. I was going to post about the uniforms, because they do infact wear green over there as well. The fact is, is that there is the "truth", "lies", and the "in-between". You have to swim through it all to decide for yourself which is real. I myself can be found somewhere in-between, because the speeches and the media are just pi@@ing me off. I seriously have to force myself to pass by Fox and CNN, while changing the channels. It just really bothers me that "everything" mentioned towards "us" is all positive.
If I know one thing it's military and their morale. I can almost guarantee that for every positive thing they say-there's a negative one not being told-and I don't like it one bit! Sorry guys just venting a little. I feel better now.

posted on Mar, 27 2003 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by magestica
It just really bothers me that "everything" mentioned towards "us" is all positive.
I can almost guarantee that for every positive thing they say-there's a negative one not being told-and I don't like it one bit!

I totally agree, I wish there was a neutral media that didn't have any influence on people or the war so we could get everything equally. You cant read the Al-Jazeera news, because they are biased the other way. Are there any media sources from maybe a smaller country that has no ties to the conflict whatsoever that would be more neutral? It's like detective work trying to hear all sources and piece it together to come up with the closest thing to the "truth" you can.

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 07:40 PM
This article claims that Al-Jazeera "tells the truth about the war" , and the writer says that his station is a threat to American media control and they know it. He claims that people are turning to them simply because the western media coverage has been so poor. He also says that al-Jazeera was the most searched item on the internet portal, Lycos, registering three times as many hits as the next item. Gee, I wonder if thats because everyone was trying to find the POW videos and the pics of the executed soldiers.

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 08:35 PM
Great article Lysergic. Thanx for posting it.

new topics

top topics


log in