Forums - The lounge
Subject: al jazeera
Viewing all 38 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4
Original Message 1/38 09-Apr-03 @ 09:40 AM Edit: 09-Apr-03 | 09:42 AM - al jazeera
Interesting for those of you who want a different view of the war with Iraq. Surpisingly it is not any more biased/partisan than FOX news, maybe less so...
English - Al Jazeera
In fact some of it's reporting on protests in the West is more than you are going to get from mainstream media in those bastions of free speech and democracy...
Message 2/38 09-Apr-03 @ 07:49 PM - RE: al jazeera
Message 3/38 10-Apr-03 @ 03:42 AM - RE: al jazeera
im sorry, but fox news is the only respectible news channel out there. MSNBC is worse than al Jazeera and the reason why you don't defend it, is cause it's left wing! today, showing their disgust for any sort of ACTIVITY that involves bush/war/anything that they don't understand (alot), they called 2 american soldiers shooting a truck with some retard with RPGs in it a "new battle field for american soldiers." They also regarded today the breaking down of the statue of sadaam and people violently insulting it, not surprising and nearly nothing compared to the other wars.
I won't even start on those two old fuck bags previously known as "Peter Jennings" and "Tom Brokaw."
But I can't watch nearly any news channel besides FOX news without wanting to vomit. I've never seen so many unsupportive bastards out there of something that is right. (Yep I said it!)
Hopefully that made sense, and it doesn't seem (as MSNBC would call it) a brand new DT battle field for a reply then someone else, then someone suggesting for someone else to place things into their rectal cavities, etc etc. It's just soo damn hard not to seem like an asshole when you're not speaking face to face. And most of the time when I read my posts, I always feel that way hehe :P
Message 4/38 10-Apr-03 @ 03:43 AM - RE: al jazeera
Message 6/38 10-Apr-03 @ 08:21 AM - RE: al jazeera
When he gassed (with western supplied technology) Halabjah (killing 5000 men, women and children) those nasty left wing activists tried to get our government in the UK to stop selling arms to Saddam.
UK/US Government response?
Nope, sorry.. he is our ally in the region! We need to back him against the evil mullahs of Iran. To whom, incidentally, we were also supplying with arms during the Iran/Iraq war. The west was quite happy to see those countries wear each other down. When it looked like Iraq was about to be invaded by the triumphant Iranian troops, we supplied Saddam with the means and instructions to create chemical weapons. He used these against the Iranians and made the famous comment along the lines of, 'It is like spraying flies, they just die where they stand'.
Now, Saddam found out about the west supplying arms to Iran at the same time they were supplying arms to Iraq and became a tad suspicious about the west's motives.
So, the statue comes down to great joy. It certainly moved me. The crowd were Shi'ia muslims who have been brutalised and repressed by Saddam for nearly 25 years, he even built them a custom 'ghetto' to live in in the east of Baghdad.
The Sunni muslims are still fighting in the rest of Baghdad, because they were the favoured group under Saddam and represent the most loyal faction to Saddam in the country. They also know that there will be a lot of revenge bloodletting and that they will be the target.
A quote from a british military anaylyst yesterday. 'Hopefully we can get the War over before the Civil War starts.'
The problem of course is that Iraq isn't actually a country. It was created by the British after World War I from various bits and pieces left over from the Ottoman Empire (The Turks). So, you have 3 seperate and distinct populations who basically hate each other.
But yes, good riddance to that utter bastard Saddam.
At the moment, Baghdad is having to deal with 100 casualties an hour, operations are taking place without anaesthetics and thousands of men, women and children have and are going to die in pain.
Ideally, the west should give the Kurds their own country. This won't happen because the Turks would probably invade instantly (they have a huge Kurdish population and are afraid they would rise up and want to join the new Kurdish nation.)
The Turks have been repressing and killing Kurds for a long time. But who cares? Certainly not the coalition.
At this moment the best we can do is hope and pray that some sort of peace comes this bastard child of the British Empire, Iraq.
Message 7/38 10-Apr-03 @ 09:54 AM - RE: al jazeera
Let's hope that the jubilations which now will be concentrated on by the western media will not descend into some aweful terrorist thing.
It'd be great if Iran could get opened up too, and the old Persia could rise from the ashes. But then the same goes in Africa... there is so many places there which are like 'cut off' because of military regimes too.
Also I think the US should give decent compensation IMMEADIATLY or asap to every single person injured and to the families of those killed in the attacks, it wouldnt cost them even a fraction of some of their smallest aid budgets and would go someway to appease the shit some people had to take in order for this action to have taken place. That would be very fair and the least they could do. After all, if they say these people had to sacrifice for the good of all their people, then they should be paid for their suffering and sacrifice at the least.
Message 8/38 10-Apr-03 @ 10:28 AM - RE: al jazeera
Message 9/38 10-Apr-03 @ 10:58 AM - RE: al jazeera
And of course having total air supremacy means they could just bomb the shit of the 'republican guard' until they ran away. hence the kill ratio of about a thousand to one.. (not counting 'friendly fire')
Message 10/38 10-Apr-03 @ 11:38 AM - RE: al jazeera
Message 11/38 10-Apr-03 @ 01:31 PM - RE: al jazeera
A sample from 2001:
'One of Fox News Channel's favorite recent stories involved a newspaper ad that claimed African-Americans benefited from slavery, and owed America for the favor. The ad's author, conservative activist David Horowitz, claimed to be a victim of censorship and "political correctness" because a number of college newspapers refused to publish his ad, which argued against the idea of slavery reparations. Fox saw this as a major issue: Horowitz and his ad were mentioned at least 21 times on the network between March 6 and April 3. '
Message 12/38 10-Apr-03 @ 03:04 PM - RE: al jazeera
I agree with you K...compensation would not be anything in the long run to us. But some of those retards dont deserve shit. I saw a little clip on MSNBC where they were "Interviewing" someone outside his home- A young iraqi man must have been in his 30's or something. And he said something along the lines of: you bastard americans, you killed my innocent wife and neighbor....
They failed to mention that they were at a restaurant that was obviously on top of a bunker where Sadaam was meant to be hiding...
Eat somewhere else if you know your ass is gonna be bombed!
Some of those casualties were their own fault..but we do owe compensation to alot of people.
Even if Fox news is terrible, comparing them to CNN MSNBC etc etc it is the most respectable by far (in my opinion, that is :P)
What you all think?
Message 13/38 10-Apr-03 @ 03:34 PM - RE: al jazeera
Fox is very conservative terribly biased towards the republican party, they have a ratio of about 5-1 republicans against democrats..
CNN at least have a statistical balance between the major parties... althought hey are quite happy to not report peace protests etc
People mostly will listen to things that reinforce their own point of view I guess..
The bottom line is that the media generally gets it wrong anyway... they don't check their facts, they allow editorial bias etc etc, they are in the pocket of their advertisers.. or prey to the political bias of the owners etc etc
My advice is to triple check everything you hear on the media.. then check it again, then take it with a pinch of salt..
Message 14/38 10-Apr-03 @ 03:48 PM - RE: al jazeera
Message 15/38 14-Apr-03 @ 02:15 PM - RE: al jazeera
Message 16/38 16-Apr-03 @ 10:41 PM - RE: al jazeera
Putting the past aside if we can (and thus questionable motives), is it a bad thing that Saddam was removed? Was there another way to do it?
I agree with Zazza regarding the news. I try to get my news from as many sources as possible. Every news outlet has it's biases - you just need to be able to sift through them. There's always 3 sides to the story - yours, mine, and the truth. Majors and independants. Like The Onion, bobfromaccounting.com, the Daily Show, etc. Now THAT'S great news. All kidding aside, if you look at how John Stewart reports the news, he's actually VERY insightful. You have to be able to see through the humor, though, there is SOO much truth to it.
Message 17/38 17-Apr-03 @ 07:36 AM - RE: al jazeera
seriously, Comedy Central is showing some really hilarious, insightful programming nowadays. Between the Daily Show, The Chappell Show, and Trigger Happy TV (ok, not very insightful, but just plain funny)... I really don't need any other television.
psy
Message 18/38 17-Apr-03 @ 10:07 AM - RE: al jazeera
" is it a bad thing that Saddam was removed? Was there another way to do it? "
Lets not bypass the fn point in search of the conscience salves. Would it have happened if there was no oil?, or Isreally interest , What happens now? What happens in previously liberated countries (what budget is there for Afghanistan rebuilding?) Who gives a f about countries without any resources (expecially those tapped out and abandoned by the west)
This movement of the argument is diversion, hot media ratings.---- All this is like the sweat of a freshl finished rapist, 24 stations with phone in polls - coming all over the ry. nobody asking the questions, especially not the fn journalists
"There's always 3 sides to the story - yours, mine, and the truth.", where is history, where is legislature? - the story doesn't exist until the telling, what do they want and why use that story, and don't forget, we forget so they can apply this logic at every event. GWB a nazi?, where did that come from?
Message 19/38 17-Apr-03 @ 10:10 AM - RE: al jazeera
The war is over. Now these questions must be answered
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Where is Saddam?
What about the alleged links to al-Qa'ida?
How many Iraqi soldiers were killed and injured?
How many civilians were killed and injured?
How many Allied casualties?
Did the Allies stick to the Geneva Conventions?
Why did Saddam's forces crumble?
Was the war illegal?
What side deals were made?
Who is in the 'coalition' and what did they do?
Where is the anti-war alliance now?
Is the UN relevant any more?
Do Iraqis feel liberated?
Why did so many journalists die?
Who was really responsible for the two marketplace bombings?
Is there a humanitarian crisis?
Are the contracts to rebuild Iraq all going to White House cronies?
Is this the first step to reordering the Middle East?
What about North Korea?
What happened to the human shields?
Has public opinion changed since the war began?
Is Ahmed Chalabi just a crooked US stooge?
What are the chances of an Iranian-style Shia revolution?
How long will American troops stay in Iraq?
Has the Rumsfeld doctrine been vindicated?
Was it really all about Israel?
Or was it about oil?
Or was it about the 2004 presidential election?
Is the world a safer place?
Message 20/38 17-Apr-03 @ 05:50 PM - RE: al jazeera
don't tell me you dont watch southpark psy!!
Message 21/38 17-Apr-03 @ 06:41 PM - RE: al jazeera
Message 22/38 18-Apr-03 @ 02:46 AM - RE: al jazeera
Message 23/38 18-Apr-03 @ 08:52 AM - RE: al jazeera
Do you deny that the US put Saddam in place? if not then all of these 'good things' you suggest including (most laughably) compensation are afronts to those offended and really point to consicnce salves for the offenders - feeling better?
"...helping them build a government for themselves a pretty good thing?" - feeling better?
"...is it a bad thing that Saddam was removed? - feeling better?
Was there another way to do it? -see other post
As regards the news - especially in times of war - there may be an argument that this was started (possibly exacerbated) by "News. Inc" - a real ratings war.
Message 25/38 19-Apr-03 @ 12:16 AM Edit: 19-Apr-03 | 12:25 AM - RE: al jazeera
Hahahaha.. hoohoohoohoo..
Awww.. how sweet, the US is helping another country build a government 'for themselves' again!
Hopefully someone can return the favour...
'George W Bush's brother captured attempting to enter Mexico as regime crumbles.. reveals that the US has been manufacturing and exporting weapons of mass destruction'
'US funds terrorism in Latin America shock'
'George W Bush 'double' spotted at Disneyland surrounded by 'citizens' wearing fur suits'
'Israel accused of 'Harbouring' Donald Rumsfeld, could be next on list'
'United Kingdom told to "choose their friends carefully"'
'Members of the ruling 'Republican Party' become victims of revenge attacks by long oppressed minorities'
'Louis Farrakhan proposed as 'interim' US leader.'
'Shock as luxury lifestyle of corporate 'executives' revealed. Money should have been used for medical care and pensions claims Liberation forces'
'Canada warned to 'secure border' as americans flee from precision bombing.'
'Water and electricity to be restored to major cities within weeks, claims liberation force'
'Liberation forces secure oilfields'
'Depleted Uranium contamination to have 'minimal effect' on cancer rates among US citizens claims liberation spokesperson'
'Mansions in Hollywood looted by poor, liberation forces stand by and say 'we can understand why they would do this''
etc..
contributions welcome..
Message 26/38 19-Apr-03 @ 01:19 AM - RE: al jazeera
In all of this anti-Americanism (I'm not arguing the validity, the point has been made again and again) there has yet to be a good solution offered. Whenever the question has been posed, the likely suspects point at the CIA's indescresions (Iraq, Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, etc), Bush's past (like GWB's granddads support for the Nazi's), the US' conservative party agenda (can't remember the name of the organization, but it outlined foreign policy aimed at taking over the world), the average American's inability to sift between pro-war propaganda and 'real' quality reporting of 'Iraqi kids being crisped' (I paraphrase), and the overall questionable motives.
This leads me to believe that you think we should have left the situation as it was. Saddam should still be in power. Is my assessment correct? Will someone bother to answer the question.
Cheddar - you still haven't answered the questions.
Message 27/38 19-Apr-03 @ 12:43 PM - RE: al jazeera
No weapons of mass destruction have been found which was the so-called 'reason' for invading Iraq.
Yes, Saddam was a dangerous and reprehensible tyrant. Unfortunately there is no provision under international law for invading countries because they have a repressive dictatorship, otherwise the US would have found it itself with a large number of its own client countries subject of invasions to restore the very democracies they toppled.. to whit chile etc.
While removing dictators and attempting to replace them with functioning democracies seems like a very good idea, surely we should be setting up an International Court of Law so that action is not taken for self interested motives by anyone who decides that country X with dictator Y deserves it.
Of course, an International Court HAS just been set up, but the US has refused to join it on the grounds that they do not want THEIR leaders or representatives subject to the law and possible prosecution.
I doubt if this has received much coverage on Faux News.
So, in my opinion, the invasion of Iraq is against international law, therefore illegal and Bush and Blair are mass murderers.
This action has been a pure power play for control of the middle east and in support of oil interests and Israel. If you think that the attpemt to bring 'democracy' is anything but a sham, wait until the Shi'a muslims attempt to vote in an Islamic government and then see what happens.
That is assuming that Iraq does into descend into civil war first.
Good luck!
Message 28/38 19-Apr-03 @ 04:05 PM - RE: al jazeera
What we need to do is waiti until the anti Americanist is at such a peak that you can craete a scene and a new word for it like "anti semetic" and before zou know it it wil be morally questionable to be Anit American....waiting
Questions.., look inside yourself to justify the question. I am waiting for your wailing
Message 29/38 19-Apr-03 @ 04:51 PM - RE: al jazeera
between a fascist state i know something about and someone i only hear lies aobut, who would you choose? where is the choice to justify these actions? maybe saddam inflicts torture on a percentage of the population, but doesn't his country still support the nomadic paradigm?
saddam does win points with me for setting those oil fields ablaze. i can empathise with that cuz it's better to kill my spirit being useless than contributing to u.s. culture.
Message 30/38 20-Apr-03 @ 02:34 AM - RE: al jazeera
Regarding the International Court. Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but you'll have to forgive my cynicism. Like Saddam Hussein would recognize a court of law...Or how about Hitler? Think he'd say "sure, you're right - I should step down..."?
How do you get the world to agree on laws when we can't sort out extradition. You can't just throw out a bunch of laws and expect nations to abide by them.
But that's just an initial reaction. Tell me more about this court thing you are talking about. Sounds pie in the sky to me, but I'll give it look and a ponder. Hell - it just might work. My questions aren't rhetorical - I'm interested in learning more about things I don't know much about.
Message 31/38 20-Apr-03 @ 02:44 AM - RE: al jazeera
http://www.iccnow.org/Introduction.html
Message 32/38 20-Apr-03 @ 03:10 AM - RE: al jazeera
Sorry C but is "bashing" your preffered candidate word...I'm going to have to go with your first decision...
"Or how about Hitler?" GWB and Hitler! who would suggest such a thing?
Law::o I undrstand why you suggest compensation I mean the % is more tangible than dealing with cashless moral victories
This bashing may not stop. I still take the piss out of an old socialist mate who uses a house cleaner, may be it can go underground. Wish there was a site listing the products made in the US and the companies (and products) predominantly US owned
A - a not "new improved" european
Message 33/38 20-Apr-03 @ 03:22 AM - RE: al jazeera
Message 34/38 20-Apr-03 @ 10:48 AM Edit: 20-Apr-03 | 10:49 AM - RE: al jazeera
'International Court of Law' Their internet site
Two of the countries which have failed to sign up are the US and Iraq..
Message 35/38 21-Apr-03 @ 10:52 PM - RE: al jazeera
Lets say they DO find chemical/bio/nuclear weapons. Would you believe it? Or would you accuse the US and UK of planting them? Answer honestly.
Message 37/38 22-Apr-03 @ 01:32 PM - RE: al jazeera
heard some french bigwig comment that the US/UK action shows the lack of control of US military. And when consiodered in military spend France (hence the rest of the world) is not spending enough. Like I mentioned in threads before Who is the enemy?
I hope they do not buy from the US - after all a chip which shuts down the machine if pointng a friendly device would be easy to hide so be prepared for massive increases in diversion of human creativity into developing new ways of killing humans
fvuk you George
Message 38/38 22-Apr-03 @ 02:34 PM - RE: al jazeera
If the US/UK go, 'Oh lookee here a thousand VX gas warheads marked 'made in texas' then no...
As always, it's a judgement call..
Not the the US seems to give a monkeys whether they find any or not..
Viewing all 38 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4
There are 38 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum