Terrorism (8 Viewers)

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


So Al-Jazeera does not influence terrorist activity? I find that absurd Majed. I just watched a story an NBC which showed what Al-Jazeera influences terrorism. I know that it might be a biased source, but it has validity. It was rather eye opening.

Your whole response does not include a single arguement against my claim that it influences terrorism, by the way. That channel shows little of the good that goes on in Iraq, and focuses mostly on the bad, in which the producers try to put the U.S. soldiers in the worst light.

If you mean does it make many people pissed off from the stuff it shows?!
The answer is Yes, but you have to understand that that's not their motive. It never was.

If you mean that they support terrorism behind then scences with means other than broadcasting the news, then I don't know. That's not for me to worry about. Companies are innocent till proven guilty not the other way around. I'm not going to go around "assuming" that they support terrorism when i don't see evidence of it.

I'll have to see that NBC show.

My Argument idirectly answers you. I answred above again.
The channel shows more bad stuff in Iraq than "good stuff," but the fact that the war is still going on after a year and a half is enough to assume that there's so much bad. They're not afraid to show US soldiers in their tough times, unlike CNN which usually only gives casuality/body counts.

The US soldiers are following orders. Where you only see them as peacekeepers, I see them as peacekeepers who started this invasion. I hope I don't seem harsh in this statement, but it's the sad truth. a truth that must be highlighted. It's an awkward feeling knowing that they're the ones implemeting this war that i'm against while their own lives are at risk. They really think that they are fighting terror and protecting us!

Again, If Aljazeera influences terrorism, it's because they show the other side of the reality there. Aljazeera is sattelie TV just a couple clicks away from CNN international.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

I saw a documentary on MUTV saying why Arsenal is a bad bad team...

No need to mock my posts Graham, you read that I stated NBC news is not a virgin to bias. But that report seems to have some validity.

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


It is not as biased as Al-Jazeera, that's for sure. They bring all the available information to light; even the Abu Grabe prison incident was beaten like a dead horse on CNN. They show the misdeeds of the terrorists, as well as our mistakes in world affairs. They do not show Osama's entire video on live television either. Every news agency shows some sort of bias, obviously, but some agencies have more bias than others.

I don't mean to blow my own whistle Andy, but I have access to both channels, speak both their respecttive languages, and know both cultures. AlJazeera isn't any more bias than CNN IMO.

They're like CNN's compliment.

Example, in the latest dutch arson attacks:
Where CNN was saying how all these churches have been burned in many paragraphs, then they mention that mosques and islamic schools have also been burned in sentance, Aljazeera did the opposite. They spent the whole article talking about the burnt mousque, eye witnesses., quotes,.. then they mentioned the churches attacked.

Again, one source isn't enough.

 

[Layce Erayce]

guys there are INDEPENDENT news organizations out there. factcheck.org, indymedia.org, linktv.org, fstv,

 

[Majed]

thanks Josh...

I'll check them out.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++
The US soldiers are following orders. Where you only see them as peacekeepers, I see them as peacekeepers who started this invasion. I hope I don't seem harsh in this statement, but it's the sad truth. a truth that must be highlighted. It's an awkward feeling knowing that they're the ones implemeting this war that i'm against while their own lives are valuable. The really think that they are fighting terror and protecting us!

Don't blame the U.S. troops for starting the war Majed, blame the government. The troops had no say in this war, they only follow orders as they are supposed to.

Again, If Aljazeera influences terrorism, it's because they show the other side of the reality there. Aljazeera is sattelie TV just a couple clicks away from CNN international.

Other side of reality? We all know the reality, it's called a hell hole. The difference between the channels is NBC does not influence people go out and pick up an AR15 and march into Iraq for the purpose to kill Iraqi's. Al-Jazeera glorifies what the terrorists are doing by showing the struggles the insurgents take part in, and put more of an emphasis on "Jihad", which is unfortunate.

I know both sides of the story Majed, I don't need to see pictures of Iraqi civilians dancing over destroyed American tanks and bodies to know that they hate us. It's like the fourth of July for them, while all we are trying to do is give them back their freedom. But they continue to cause trouble, and this prolongs the freedom process further. They might be fighting for their freedom, but in reality they are fighting against this freedom.

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


Don't blame the U.S. troops for starting the war Majed, blame the government. The troops had no say in this war, they only follow orders as they are supposed to.

Of course the troops aren't the root of the problem, that's why I started my paragraph with the sentence that they are just following orders.

Other side of reality? We all know the reality, it's called a hell hole. The difference between the channels is NBC does not influence people go out and pick up an AR15 and march into Iraq for the purpose to kill Iraqi's. Al-Jazeera glorifies what the terrorists are doing by showing the struggles the insurgents take part in, and put more of an emphasis on "Jihad", which is unfortunate.

It is indeed a hell hole. A hell hole that is given a more rosey picture by US media.
Again, I don't think it's their motive to influence or glorify.

I know both sides of the story Majed, I don't need to see pictures of Iraqi civilians dancing over destroyed American tanks and bodies to know that they hate us. It's like the fourth of July for them, while all we are trying to do is give them back their freedom. But they continue to cause trouble, and this prolongs the freedom process further. They might be fighting for their freedom, but in reality they are fighting against this freedom.

This is where we keep looping back. They don't hate Americans for being American. If Zimbabwe invaded them, they'd fight them. We're on their land after their oil for our financial intrest. They aren't after us.

I also want to clarify that the people fighting for their land are not all (and do not support) the same people who are beheading civilians. The US media want us to think that they are all the same so it's easier for us to think of the Iraqis, who don't want the US in their land, as terrorists. Reread this paragraph. It's that important.

Your definition of freedom is not exactly the same as their's. Why are we shuving "freedom" down their throats.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++

It is indeed a hell hole. A hell hole that is given a more rosey picture by US media.
Again, I don't think it's their motive to influence or glorify.

Rosey picture? I don't call looking at people getting shot at, people about to be beheaded, or car bombs going off at checkpoints a "rosey picture". If the media is trying make us think that everything is A okay in Iraq, they sure as hell are doing a lousy job at it.

Your definition of freedom is not exactly the same as their's. Why are we shuving "freedom" down their throats.

Good point. Another reason to just abandon this whole operation. If the citizens, idiotically, do not want freedom, then it's their problem. Might as well bring the troops home....

 

[gray]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
No need to mock my posts Graham, you read that I stated NBC news is not a virgin to bias. But that report seems to have some validity.

my apologies, that was inappropriate. The way you worded the post seemed a bit silly at the time.

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
Good point. Another reason to just abandon this whole operation. If the citizens, idiotically, do not want freedom, then it's their problem. Might as well bring the troops home....

is that to say that if the troops were pulled out of Iraq, the Iraqi people would suddenly have chains shackled to their wrists? I don't really think the US troops are there to free Iraqis from anything. It was a good thing to overthrow Saddam Hussein from power, but for me, that's where the good work came to a grinding halt. It's not like the Iraqis are currently under a tyrannical rule, and US soldiers are offering to cut their chains loose, but the Iraqis are fighting back... I'm sure that if they were convinced that the US was bringing freedom to Iraq, they'd gladly accept. The 'freedom' that is offered in this case is largle intangible or nonexistent


btw what do you guys think of this:?

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection.' The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, newly illegal. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from IP developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, shared freely like agricultural 'open source.' Other IP provisions for technology in the law further integrate Iraq into the American IP economy.

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++

Good point. Another reason to just abandon this whole operation. If the citizens, idiotically, do not want freedom, then it's their problem. Might as well bring the troops home....

Again, your definition of freedom isn't the ultimate correct definition that applies to everyone. In other words, they don't want your version of freedom.. they want theirs.

They could say the same. Andy "Idiotically" claims that his country is trying to give us freedom.

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

btw what do you guys think of this:?

The same thing I think about how memebrs of the US government wanted to build a CDMA wireless network in Iraq instead of a GSM NW.

Is it the better choice for Iraqis?
No, for many reasons, the first being that not a single middle east country uses CDMA. Therefore, Iraqis in the future can't benifit from roaming in other neighboring countries.

Who uses CDMA networks? USA

Who will manily benifit from this at Iraqis expense? USA companies.

True this will help the US economy, but how dare we claim that we're doing it for them.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

is that to say that if the troops were pulled out of Iraq, the Iraqi people would suddenly have chains shackled to their wrists? I don't really think the US troops are there to free Iraqis from anything. It was a good thing to overthrow Saddam Hussein from power, but for me, that's where the good work came to a grinding halt. It's not like the Iraqis are currently under a tyrannical rule, and US soldiers are offering to cut their chains loose, but the Iraqis are fighting back... I'm sure that if they were convinced that the US was bringing freedom to Iraq, they'd gladly accept. The 'freedom' that is offered in this case is largle intangible or nonexistent

So for what reason are our troops there for? Why are we risking the lives of our troops in Fallujah fighting against inhabitants who cause problems to the public? If we only care about the oil, which many here claim, why don't we just put a human shield of soldiers around the oil refineries in Iraq instead of waste them in populated areas? And if we would suddenly leave, which IMO we should do, the country would just go back to it's old self, with any sort of freedom being abandoned. No need to waste time controlling people who do not want something beneficial to their living. Let them fend, miserably, for themselves.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++


Again, your definition of freedom isn't the ultimate correct definition that applies to everyone. In other words, they don't want your version of freedom.. they want theirs.

They could say the same. Andy "Idiotically" claims that his country is trying to give us freedom.

If so, what is their vision of "freedom"? Being controlled by a ruthless dictator?

 

[Majed]

The field are already the most protected. they're like forts.

the problem is protecting the oil pipes.

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


If so, what is their vision of "freedom"? Being controlled by a ruthless dictator?

Their version is: not being controled by another country and not depending on their economy. It's called independance.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++
The field are already the most protected. they're like forts.

the problem is protecting the oil pipes.

Okay. Lineup our troops in front of the oil pipes then.

 

[gray]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
If we only care about the oil, which many here claim, why don't we just put a human shield of soldiers around the oil refineries in Iraq instead of waste them in populated areas?

I'm not just having a cheap shot at the US, but I have no other way to say this other than... it'd be too obvious if they guarded only the oil refineries, as well as the fact that they have to clear out the Iraqi resistance first..

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
If so, what is their vision of "freedom"? Being controlled by a ruthless dictator?

are they currently controlled by a ruthless dictator? No.

As I said before, it's great that Saddam was removed from power, but to hinge the whole US military presence on that fact is a bit of a copout

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++


Their version is: not being controled by another country and not depending on their economy. It's called independance.

Independence....freedom......football.....calcio, all the same to me. If the Iraqi people want to go back to the Saddam era, they do not deserve any better.

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


Independence....freedom......football.....calcio, all the same to me. If the Iraqi people want to go back to the Saddam era, they do not deserve any better.

I don't know why you keep implying that that's what they want or that's what i think that they want.

who said anything about going back to Saddam's era?

 

[gray]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
Independence....freedom......football.....calcio, all the same to me. If the Iraqi people want to go back to the Saddam era, they do not deserve any better.

you're just shrugging off his point Incubo-style. Do you honestly think that if the US wasn't making every decision regarding Iraq's government, that they'd return to 'the Saddam era'?

How is it the same thing for a country to have the freedom to make its own decisions and not be economically dependent on the corporations of another nation, and have a constant presence of a foreign army around every corner?