http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/1.htm
Articles you should read
I don't buy this, and I frankly think that the author of that article needs a head check.
I may not agree with everything my (US) government does, but I do not think they are so despicable as to utilize 5,000 deaths for a 'hidden agenda' like the one listed in this article.
I know a lot of countries hate the US, but this is a little too farfetched.
I may not agree with everything my (US) government does, but I do not think they are so despicable as to utilize 5,000 deaths for a 'hidden agenda' like the one listed in this article.
I know a lot of countries hate the US, but this is a little too farfetched.
Pretty weak stuff, designed to influence the indiscriminate thinker. I'm not going to say that the US hasn't made terrible blunders in foreign policy which have - and continue to - come back and bite it. (Like on 9/11) But, these essays play a shell game with facts and unsupported conclusions: they say "here's a fact" and then immediately follow it up with a supposed "conclusion," designed to discourage the reader from thinking for himself.
In the end, these are only polemics fueled by just as much of an (transparent) agenda as they assign to the US. If what they had to say was actually true, they have done their cause the greatest disservice by presenting their case so poorly and by so obviously avoiding abundant and contradictory evidence.
These articles are about as logically sound as the argument that the Catholic church is consciously working to further the worship of Satan... yes, there are people who, using similar fallacious logic twisted around facts have convinced themselves of that!
In the end, these are only polemics fueled by just as much of an (transparent) agenda as they assign to the US. If what they had to say was actually true, they have done their cause the greatest disservice by presenting their case so poorly and by so obviously avoiding abundant and contradictory evidence.
These articles are about as logically sound as the argument that the Catholic church is consciously working to further the worship of Satan... yes, there are people who, using similar fallacious logic twisted around facts have convinced themselves of that!
Aye.
Agreee with Mplor entirely, and further say that this article is stongly built around pre-concieved ideas. The works cited or quoted in this article are plainly contextualised to the ideas of the author. 'Factual' information has be derived from secondary sources, that of the notorious public media, (although I am not familiar on the quality of these papers in the US) while other readily available information such as public statements by the government have been ommitted.
...IMHO..
Safe Travels
Sarell/Ladak/etc AKA Patrick
Agreee with Mplor entirely, and further say that this article is stongly built around pre-concieved ideas. The works cited or quoted in this article are plainly contextualised to the ideas of the author. 'Factual' information has be derived from secondary sources, that of the notorious public media, (although I am not familiar on the quality of these papers in the US) while other readily available information such as public statements by the government have been ommitted.
...IMHO..
Safe Travels
Sarell/Ladak/etc AKA Patrick
Ok, mabye not totally in the thread, but still.
I think it is sad to see that certain groups of people simply don't have access to versatile, objective news. CNN and ABC are good examples on media that one would think could be able to cover the WTC tragedy with a global view. But instead they filter so only what the amerikans "want to hear" is broadcasted. It annoys me deeply!! It troubles me to ponder what americans are to think if they only get the CNN version. People from Europe got BBC World, and all other contries got their own independent news stations. Just not America.
USA have so insanely much goodwill in the world right now. Bombing a town and killing mabye 100 innocent will remove all that goodwill, and some guy they kill will become the new Martin L. King.
-Shaylot McFeast
I think it is sad to see that certain groups of people simply don't have access to versatile, objective news. CNN and ABC are good examples on media that one would think could be able to cover the WTC tragedy with a global view. But instead they filter so only what the amerikans "want to hear" is broadcasted. It annoys me deeply!! It troubles me to ponder what americans are to think if they only get the CNN version. People from Europe got BBC World, and all other contries got their own independent news stations. Just not America.
USA have so insanely much goodwill in the world right now. Bombing a town and killing mabye 100 innocent will remove all that goodwill, and some guy they kill will become the new Martin L. King.
-Shaylot McFeast
Shaylot:
I do not understand what your getting at. First off, I dont think there is a more diverse collection of different news organizations in the world then in the U.S. I agree that people in the U.S. aren't as interested in international news as Europeans, but I think that has something to do with the fact that unlike Europe, we are geographically isolated from most modernized countries. However, for people that are interested, any type of information is easily accessible. I, for instance, often read The Economist, a british magazine that covers international news from a European perspective.
How any of this leads to the U.S. killing innocent civilians, I dont know. Maybe what you are getting at is that the world community is worried that us cowboys (an image etched in the mind of europeans through Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove) will respond to this attack indiscriminately, and just kill anything that moves, and you want us to understand these fears.
I take offense at that. I dont think there is a more humanitarian country in the world than the U.S. We saved Europe twice from horrendous wars that they started. And then we stuck around to help rebuild it. We are charitable people, as demonstrated by the numerous organizations funded by ordinary americans that dole out food and medicine in impovershed nations. Whenever some nationalist governmental regime takes power and threatens its neighbors, who steps in and resolves the situation? What makes you think we would lash out by killing innocent muslims?
Have you noticed that the leaders of the U.S., rather than igniting passions against a religious group, have made a point of describing Islam as a peaceful religion? There have been no roundups or mass detentions of muslims, and very few incidents of vigilancism against them.
I dont know, because your message was very vague, but I think that you have succumbed to the fashionable european pasttime of bashing the U.S. It kind of resembles a child rebelling against its parents. I get the impression that many Europeans are just plain jealous of the U.S. because it is as powerful and succesful as it is. Every time we do something on an international scale, we are told that we are abusing our power. But if we didn't do anything, we would get bashed for not providing the leadership that is required of us.
The free world is threatened by very specific people. These terrorists, though small in number, can be found everywhere. I think it is clear that the United States has declared war (not in the traditional sense)against these people and countries that consciously aid and abet them. I do not think that anyone in the free world can make a serious argument against this war. If we let them go this time, perhaps the next attack would be a nuclear bomb in Berlin.. or maybe an anthrax attack in Tokyo. Or Sarin gas in Madrid. They're enemy is not just the United States.. it is the free world and western civilization. The United States is a convenient target because of its involvement against Iraq and its historic ties with Israel, but make no mistake, what these fiends detest is freedom and prosperity. This war isn't about lashing out against some poor bastards starving in afghanistan.. hurting those people is the last thing any of us care about. This was is about preventing the next atrocity.
Corth
I do not understand what your getting at. First off, I dont think there is a more diverse collection of different news organizations in the world then in the U.S. I agree that people in the U.S. aren't as interested in international news as Europeans, but I think that has something to do with the fact that unlike Europe, we are geographically isolated from most modernized countries. However, for people that are interested, any type of information is easily accessible. I, for instance, often read The Economist, a british magazine that covers international news from a European perspective.
How any of this leads to the U.S. killing innocent civilians, I dont know. Maybe what you are getting at is that the world community is worried that us cowboys (an image etched in the mind of europeans through Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove) will respond to this attack indiscriminately, and just kill anything that moves, and you want us to understand these fears.
I take offense at that. I dont think there is a more humanitarian country in the world than the U.S. We saved Europe twice from horrendous wars that they started. And then we stuck around to help rebuild it. We are charitable people, as demonstrated by the numerous organizations funded by ordinary americans that dole out food and medicine in impovershed nations. Whenever some nationalist governmental regime takes power and threatens its neighbors, who steps in and resolves the situation? What makes you think we would lash out by killing innocent muslims?
Have you noticed that the leaders of the U.S., rather than igniting passions against a religious group, have made a point of describing Islam as a peaceful religion? There have been no roundups or mass detentions of muslims, and very few incidents of vigilancism against them.
I dont know, because your message was very vague, but I think that you have succumbed to the fashionable european pasttime of bashing the U.S. It kind of resembles a child rebelling against its parents. I get the impression that many Europeans are just plain jealous of the U.S. because it is as powerful and succesful as it is. Every time we do something on an international scale, we are told that we are abusing our power. But if we didn't do anything, we would get bashed for not providing the leadership that is required of us.
The free world is threatened by very specific people. These terrorists, though small in number, can be found everywhere. I think it is clear that the United States has declared war (not in the traditional sense)against these people and countries that consciously aid and abet them. I do not think that anyone in the free world can make a serious argument against this war. If we let them go this time, perhaps the next attack would be a nuclear bomb in Berlin.. or maybe an anthrax attack in Tokyo. Or Sarin gas in Madrid. They're enemy is not just the United States.. it is the free world and western civilization. The United States is a convenient target because of its involvement against Iraq and its historic ties with Israel, but make no mistake, what these fiends detest is freedom and prosperity. This war isn't about lashing out against some poor bastards starving in afghanistan.. hurting those people is the last thing any of us care about. This was is about preventing the next atrocity.
Corth
My guess is that most people that even get to this site have a fair access to news. What annoys me is mostly CNN. They have only within the last few days begun to tell that there really is global resistance to measures done as a result of the 11 sep. What also annoy me is that CNN never question the amerikan governtment. Had totally many amerikan flags (For some odd reason this is seem hostile in the muslim world), said themselves that they where subjective and just didn't take in objective experts, but relied on american experts that couldn't see diplomatic sollutions. I think it has chanced a bit the last few days. But it is still scary that such a big channel have such a narrow coverage.
There are diplomatic solutions to a guy that murdered 7,000 people? Who simply hates our country and brainwashes his own citizens into suicidal kamikaze bombers? I'm sorry, but there is no way that Bin Laden is going to just sit down at a meeting and agree to stop hostilities no matter what we say to him. And even if he did it would be a huge injustice to those who lost their lives because of his actions. To let him off is to condone mass murder, you might just as well ask for Jeffery Dhalmer's release from prison.
Hmm.. you mean ppl actually watch CNN? unimaginable.. deplorable.. btw.. Emmanual Goldestein, (erik corely), who publishes 2600 magazine recently went on vacation in Europe, says that their News/media coverage is far better than the U.S.'s. Because they aren't over censored for content and some other things he said.. but i can't remember 
anyway.. cnn seemed to do some good coverage during the desert storm conflict since i heard Suddam used to watch it to see what we were doing next anyway.. i never watched cnn or msnbc.. i usually rely on other media outlets.. i just never liked either one.. just me maybe..
anyway.. cnn seemed to do some good coverage during the desert storm conflict since i heard Suddam used to watch it to see what we were doing next anyway.. i never watched cnn or msnbc.. i usually rely on other media outlets.. i just never liked either one.. just me maybe..CNN is a good news network.
The major American networks operate as businesses, because they are for-profit organiazations. Therefore it is in their best interests to present news with their target audience in mind. CNN tends to broadcast to AMERICA, not to specific age and ethnic demographics.
CBS targets its programming toward older, middle class viewers. Their news programming includes 60 Minutes and 48 Hours, as well as the CBS Evening News. These programs showcase anchor faces that the older public has been familiar with for years: Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, etc. Every other major news network, including CNN, got together and decided to stop airing clips of the WTC, for fear they would become cliche. Not CBS. The elderly are most easily influenced by repeated viewings of emotional, graphic images. My theory is, CBS continues to air these videos to hold sway over their target audience: middle age and elderly people.
FOX, on the other hand, is for the young people. Their "news" programming is full of sensational, extravagent shows like Cops and When <something> <does something bad> to <someone else> (When Dogs Attack Magicians!). FOX News is the most outrageous, in-your-face, paranoia inducing show on television allowed to call itself nonfiction. In order to report to their target audience, they cycle through images and stories as fast as humanly possible. Young people have no attention span to listen to Dan Rather talk for an hour. They want sound bytes and hot headlines. That's what they get.
Anyway, the point of all this is, CNN does an excellent job of providing nonbiased, nontargetted news coverage, -when compared to the networks- in America. There's no interviewing people on the street with leading questions to try to get an emotional story. They sit there and tell you what's going on. It may be more locally biased than Euro News, but Americans as a whole are more interested in what our reaction will be than, well, yours.
- Ragorn
www.nakednews.com
The major American networks operate as businesses, because they are for-profit organiazations. Therefore it is in their best interests to present news with their target audience in mind. CNN tends to broadcast to AMERICA, not to specific age and ethnic demographics.
CBS targets its programming toward older, middle class viewers. Their news programming includes 60 Minutes and 48 Hours, as well as the CBS Evening News. These programs showcase anchor faces that the older public has been familiar with for years: Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, etc. Every other major news network, including CNN, got together and decided to stop airing clips of the WTC, for fear they would become cliche. Not CBS. The elderly are most easily influenced by repeated viewings of emotional, graphic images. My theory is, CBS continues to air these videos to hold sway over their target audience: middle age and elderly people.
FOX, on the other hand, is for the young people. Their "news" programming is full of sensational, extravagent shows like Cops and When <something> <does something bad> to <someone else> (When Dogs Attack Magicians!). FOX News is the most outrageous, in-your-face, paranoia inducing show on television allowed to call itself nonfiction. In order to report to their target audience, they cycle through images and stories as fast as humanly possible. Young people have no attention span to listen to Dan Rather talk for an hour. They want sound bytes and hot headlines. That's what they get.
Anyway, the point of all this is, CNN does an excellent job of providing nonbiased, nontargetted news coverage, -when compared to the networks- in America. There's no interviewing people on the street with leading questions to try to get an emotional story. They sit there and tell you what's going on. It may be more locally biased than Euro News, but Americans as a whole are more interested in what our reaction will be than, well, yours.
- Ragorn
www.nakednews.com
Interesting Asessment. I like FOX news but only after I discovered the O'Reilly Factor. That show kicks butt!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
FOX, on the other hand, is for the young people. Their "news" programming is full of sensational, extravagent shows like Cops and When <something> <does something bad> to <someone else> (When Dogs Attack Magicians!). FOX News is the most outrageous, in-your-face, paranoia inducing show on television allowed to call itself nonfiction. In order to report to their target audience, they cycle through images and stories as fast as humanly possible. Young people have no attention span to listen to Dan Rather talk for an hour. They want sound bytes and hot headlines. That's what they get.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
FOX, on the other hand, is for the young people. Their "news" programming is full of sensational, extravagent shows like Cops and When <something> <does something bad> to <someone else> (When Dogs Attack Magicians!). FOX News is the most outrageous, in-your-face, paranoia inducing show on television allowed to call itself nonfiction. In order to report to their target audience, they cycle through images and stories as fast as humanly possible. Young people have no attention span to listen to Dan Rather talk for an hour. They want sound bytes and hot headlines. That's what they get.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
I agree with Nokie. (Nokie, you ROCK)
I quite enjoy FOXnews Network, simply because it does *not* show the disturbing images/film clips of murder/terror. Yes, they show pictures of the WTC in ruins, yes, they show pictures of mourning family, friends, and onlookers. What they do not do is force macabre images of death and hatred upon us. They have said again and again that showing those types of things is for the more sensational networks, and they will instead present the facts without the horrible, morbid pictures to further plague our minds.
How am I, as a mother, supposed to explain to my 4year old son (recently turned) WHY it is that some innocent woman was shot in the head on national TV. Having to explain the attack on innocent thousands was hard enough. He sat in front of the TV and cried with me as the WTC story unfolded before us.... my 4 year old son. Questions are arising that no child should have to ask, yet do on a daily basis. I dont know that he understands just what this means for the United States, nor do I think he understands that thousands of peoples lives were ended. What he *does* understand is that a mean man killed a woman on TV.
Are these types of things isolated? No, of course not... I have since seen the same clip on 2 other networks, not to mention the other things they so freely show, thier list goes on and on. WHY do they subject us to these things, is it to get a rise out of us? To anger us? Well I can tell you... I'm not angry.. I'm PISSED.
I choose to shelter my son from things that could hurt him. We talk often of the bad things in the world, for his own safety. Kidnappers, child molesters, that type of thing. I never thought I'd hear the question; Mommy, what did that man do to that woman... was she a mommy too?..... my 4 year old son.
News coverage is good, shock factor stories are NOT for the general public... immages like the one discribed above stick with you forever... why put that kind of thing in your head when you already KNOW these terrorists mean business?
News media in thier entirety are necessary.. that dosent mean they need to flood our minds, our childrens minds with horrific events.
Just my view as a mother.
Nitania
I quite enjoy FOXnews Network, simply because it does *not* show the disturbing images/film clips of murder/terror. Yes, they show pictures of the WTC in ruins, yes, they show pictures of mourning family, friends, and onlookers. What they do not do is force macabre images of death and hatred upon us. They have said again and again that showing those types of things is for the more sensational networks, and they will instead present the facts without the horrible, morbid pictures to further plague our minds.
How am I, as a mother, supposed to explain to my 4year old son (recently turned) WHY it is that some innocent woman was shot in the head on national TV. Having to explain the attack on innocent thousands was hard enough. He sat in front of the TV and cried with me as the WTC story unfolded before us.... my 4 year old son. Questions are arising that no child should have to ask, yet do on a daily basis. I dont know that he understands just what this means for the United States, nor do I think he understands that thousands of peoples lives were ended. What he *does* understand is that a mean man killed a woman on TV.
Are these types of things isolated? No, of course not... I have since seen the same clip on 2 other networks, not to mention the other things they so freely show, thier list goes on and on. WHY do they subject us to these things, is it to get a rise out of us? To anger us? Well I can tell you... I'm not angry.. I'm PISSED.
I choose to shelter my son from things that could hurt him. We talk often of the bad things in the world, for his own safety. Kidnappers, child molesters, that type of thing. I never thought I'd hear the question; Mommy, what did that man do to that woman... was she a mommy too?..... my 4 year old son.
News coverage is good, shock factor stories are NOT for the general public... immages like the one discribed above stick with you forever... why put that kind of thing in your head when you already KNOW these terrorists mean business?
News media in thier entirety are necessary.. that dosent mean they need to flood our minds, our childrens minds with horrific events.
Just my view as a mother.
Nitania
For my money, FOX is the U.S. definition of a sensational network. When this was on 24/7, I tried FOX out and was disgusted. They had Newt Gingrich on TV spouting the most obscene commentary about how we absolutely had to legally declare war on Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan immediately. To think that man was once the Speaker of the House just makes me shudder. The man wanted World War 3.
edit: No, Newt wasnt being interviewed. He was brought in as a guest commentator, and having seen him several times on Fox, I believe he's under contract to them. He was commenting for Fox, not to Fox.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 09-29-2001).]
edit: No, Newt wasnt being interviewed. He was brought in as a guest commentator, and having seen him several times on Fox, I believe he's under contract to them. He was commenting for Fox, not to Fox.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 09-29-2001).]
I highly recommend this article from Time magazine about the reasons why the US is so unpopular in the Middle East. For a US publication, this article does a laudable job of presenting the facts impartially. Some are candy-coated for US consumption, but if you are looking for it, you can read between the lines.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,175979,00.html
edit: Just noticed this link has been posted in the main WTC thread. Sorry bout that. Still, a worthwhile read.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 09-29-2001).]
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,175979,00.html
edit: Just noticed this link has been posted in the main WTC thread. Sorry bout that. Still, a worthwhile read.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 09-29-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">edit: No, Newt wasnt being interviewed. He was brought in as a guest commentator, and having seen him several times on Fox, I believe he's under contract to them. He was commenting for Fox, not to Fox.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 09-29-2001).][/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just so you know, they also have Geraldine Ferarro (Democratic vice presidential candidate back in the 80s) and Patricia Ireland (former president of the National Organization of Women aka NOW) on as guest commenatators as well. So I feel that they do a much better job on FOXnews than on say CNN or MSNBC. Of the 3 CNN seems to be the most lopsided and is the worst for fairness.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 09-29-2001).][/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just so you know, they also have Geraldine Ferarro (Democratic vice presidential candidate back in the 80s) and Patricia Ireland (former president of the National Organization of Women aka NOW) on as guest commenatators as well. So I feel that they do a much better job on FOXnews than on say CNN or MSNBC. Of the 3 CNN seems to be the most lopsided and is the worst for fairness.
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests