Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Longinius

Mid east

Recommended Posts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gaswell @ May 08 2002,16:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree.<span id='postcolor'>

From what I can read about HonestReporting.com, I can't help but question their neutrality.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you not intellectually capable of questioning the page I pointed out that you have to go out on a limb and just dismiss them out of hand without basis?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, the HonestReporting.com site comes off as being so blatantly biased that it's rather laughable. Don't get me wrong; I'm not implying that HonestReporting.com doesn't provide honest-to-God reporting, but I'm saying that their journalistic style comes off as bordering on propaganda.<span id='postcolor'>

I never knew that propaganda was by definition evil or wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But they're a funny read, nonetheless, in a Pravda sort of way. Guess I'm just used to another level of news reporting.<span id='postcolor'>

If HR is correct in their highlights of the British press, it might be you that's reading the Bolshevik slant on life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What amuses me about that article is the part at the bottom that gives praise to the Sun newspaper. This being one of our countries trashiest rags, that writes about breasts, celebrity scoops and other general bollocks.

Its possibly the nations favourite newspaper, mainly because people quite literally buy it to look at the page 3 nudes and the sports section.  biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 08 2002,16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What amuses me about that article is the part at the bottom that gives praise to the Sun newspaper. This being one of our countries trashiest rags, that writes about breasts, celebrity scoops and other general bollocks.<span id='postcolor'>

Now, can you tell me what's wrong with the points brought down in the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can tell you is that those articles found within a few newspapers in this country were indeed fairly biased, and also there were some good points such as why the soldiers have not reported such a massacre...

But I can also tell you that there werent any articles on that page about the BBC being biased, so you have a lot to answer for young lady

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (KingBeast @ May 08 2002,15wow.gif9)

Damn the BBC is biased to both palestinians and Israelis!

theavonlady: I disagree.<span id='postcolor'>

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 08 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All I can tell you is that those articles found within a few newspapers in this country were indeed fairly biased, and also there were some good points such as why the soldiers have not reported such a massacre...<span id='postcolor'>

Because there wasn't one. Even Human Rights Watch, B'tselem, etc., have climbed down from there trees.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I can also tell you that there werent any articles on that page about the BBC being biased, so you have a lot to answer for young lady<span id='postcolor'>

Flattery will get you nowhere! tounge.gif

I jumped the gun. I read BBC but was thinking British Press.

However, in the last week of April and first week of May I was in Europe and watched BBC and CNN news practically every morning and night. During the first few days,BBC, much more so than CNN, reflected the similar biases shown by the UK papers. When it became apparent that the question "where's the beef" couldn't be answered around that time, the tone definitely changed, though the "allegations" were continuously referred to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you not intellectually capable of questioning the page I pointed out that you have to go out on a limb and just dismiss them out of hand without basis?<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Yep, that's exactly it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never knew that propaganda was by definition evil or wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, they pretty much put their foot in their mouth by claiming to promote journalistic integrity and then have an editorial style that comes off as much too propaganda-ish. That's the funny part. Again, despite your questions about my mental capacity, I don't say that they're not potentially correct in every regard. It's just that their editorial style is too blunt to take seriously.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If HR is correct in their highlights of the British press, it might be you that's reading the Bolshevik slant on life.<span id='postcolor'>

Could be, could be. I'll keep HonestReporting.com bookmarked. They're a great read.

Look, I don't object to strong editorial agendas, or even journalists letting their personal feelings and opinions colour their reporting. It can't be helped, and it's usually not very hard to spot. However, when they come on as strong as HonestReporting.com does, they tend to lose some credibility. Which, if we assume that they are right, is quite sad indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gaswell @ May 08 2002,16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't say that they're not potentially correct in every regard. It's just that their editorial style is too blunt to take seriously.<span id='postcolor'>

If what they're quoting from the British press is true, then the same can be said about the British press as well, couldn't it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look, I don't object to strong editorial agendas, or even journalists letting their personal feelings and opinions colour their reporting.<span id='postcolor'>

I do, unless it's on the editor's page. Maybe that's the problem - we tolerate biased, sided and emotional journalism. This is a general problem and it seems to have gotten much worse in the last 2 or 3 decades than it was before. So it seems, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 08 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you not intellectually capable<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently I was not intellectually capable of controling my emotions (degenerative gene from my father's side, maybe? ).

I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If what they're quoting from the British press is true, then the same can be said about the British press as well, couldn't it?<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, and you may not be surprised to hear that the Norwegian press can appear somewhat pro-Palestinian in their Middle East coverage at times too. It's usually quite moderate stuff, though, except for a few smaller contributors who don't display any great desire to be taken seriously.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that's the problem - we tolerate biased, sided and emotional journalism. This is a general problem and it seems to have gotten much worse in the last 2 or 3 decades than it was before. So it seems, at least to me.<span id='postcolor'>

Agree. It becomes ever more important that people draw their news from several different sources, and keep in mind what kind of connections (political, financial, ethnical, religious, etc.) these sources may or may not have. Hopefully we end up with a situation where the combined versions of a certain story give us a proper understanding of the actual event.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apparently I was not intellectually capable of controling my emotions (degenerative gene from my father's side, maybe? ).<span id='postcolor'>

No sweat. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,17:27)

Apparently I was not intellectually capable of controling my emotions (degenerative gene from my father's side, maybe? ).

<span id='postcolor'>

Degenerative gene found in all women actually biggrin.gif

/me runs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep, and you may not be surprised to hear that the Norwegian press can appear somewhat pro-Palestinian in their Middle East coverage at times too. It's usually quite moderate stuff, though, except for a few smaller contributors who don't display any great desire to be taken seriously.<span id='postcolor'>

Yepp the same goes for the Swedish coverage. It is very interesting to read CNN.com and Swedish newspapers. They report entirely different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 08 2002,16:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that's the problem - we tolerate biased, sided and emotional journalism.<span id='postcolor'>

It is not just a question of tolerating biased journalism. Sun Tzu wrote already in 500 BC in his book "Art of War" how intel is always notoriously unreliable. The problem is that we have no fix reference except our interpretations of our own experiences to judge information provided by others. Even if you accept that there is such a thing as an objective reality, you always have some form of interpretation in the end. All the information that we get has been processed and interpreted by human beings.

One other basic premissis of intel analysis is that ones greatest enemy is common sense.

Common sense is our way of trying to exrapolate our own every day experiences to things we actually have no clues about. Incorrect assumptions that might seem rational are one major source of error.

Averaging the information that you get from multiple sources (preferably infinitely many) can give you a clue of an average interpretation of an event. This doesn't at all mean that it is correct, and most of all *you* are interpreting the data in the end. Our Neural Networks in the brain process data by generalisation of previous data. That means that information is processed in different ways depending on who you are and what you have experienced. This is relevant since there is no value in raw data. The value of information comes with its interpretation.

Another problem is the lack of completeness. We have infinitely data to choose from when we select what to report. There are of course norms for what you report if you say are covering an election. In the end it comes down to personal opinions of what is relevant and what is not. Even if we all thought alike it would be impossible since the world is to complex to be handeled in a determinstic way (event A leads to event B that leads to event C, therefor A leads to C). We simply have no theoretical way of knowing all the facts that are related to an event.

So when people are claiming that 10000000 people were killed in Jemen or 10 ppl were killed think about this: Have you ever experienced first hand killings of > 10 people? Do you have any actual real life reference to anything similar? What is the source for this information in the first place? How do you know the validity of that source? What are the ommitted facts (10000000 people were killed in Jemen the last 1000000 years by natural causes). And finally, what is the point of this information. What is the intended interpretation of it. What is your interpretation of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oligo:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I ask again, how does the suicide bomber to be get into Israel proper to blow him/herself up? Finland has about a 1000 klicks of border with Russia and a lot of it is in totally undeveloped wilderness (roadless and such, you can still find old crashed german and russian warplanes from WWII in there). Still, we manage to guard this border so well that it is next to impossible to get in undetected. So how the hell cannot Israel do that? Explain it, I want to know.<span id='postcolor'>

Two factors that I can think of:  (1) How are the Israelis supposed to identify the terrorists, who are native to the area; and (2) How do they defend against an enemy who’s literally “dying to kill?â€

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that while I admit the talebs deserved to be kicked (not for the reasons you claim, but for being oppressive bastards), your reaction to this 9/11 matter was so classically yanky: 'Find an enemy quick, so we can bomb, because talking is so confusing, because there is no clear winner.' You just love simple solutions, but simple solutions don't work in a complex world.<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban had one month to decide.  They didn’t want to play ball, so they got the bat up their @$$.  And no one here thinks this is a simple solution, it’s just the first stage of what’s going to be a long process.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The public outcry need not come from your citizens, but it can also come from your allies and such, which you need to suck from time to time in order to keep them in the leash.<span id='postcolor'>

If you re-read what I’ve been saying about this, my point is that our involvement was due to our NATO responsibilities and not national self-interest.  We keep going back and forth here but I think we’re actually in agreement.

BTW, I think (hope?) you might have mixed your metaphors here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know what you think, but war is never a 'public service'.<span id='postcolor'>

War in defense of attacked or oppressed people is the HIGHEST FORM of public service.

“And yet less thanks have we than you.  Travelers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names.  ‘Strider’ I am to one fat man who lives within a day’s march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly.  Yet we would not have it otherwise.  If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so.  That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown.â€

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the way I see it, you have never exactly been dragged into a war, either. So technically, you initiated your involvement into them all (usually with an attack).<span id='postcolor'>

As I’ve stated before, there is a difference in reacting aggressively when provoked and being an aggressor.  Of course we initiated OUR involvement, and attacking is better than the alternative.  I ask again, though, who typically initiates the hostilities we get involved with?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the little wars after WWII you have been involved in, you have always gone in, dropped bombs and left others to sort out the shit. Promises don't count. Only after you have really done something, you have the right to claim that you have changed.<span id='postcolor'>

So we should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq?  What other wars are we talking about?  If history shows anything, it’s that we’re always ready to help a former enemy that “realizes the error of their ways†-- look at Germany and Japan, for heaven’s sake.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet communists were always the ones who backed away from imminent nuclear showdowns (f.ex. the Cuban missile crisis). It was never you. So who's the fanatic?<span id='postcolor'>

The Cuban Missile Crisis is the only imminent nuclear showdown that I’m aware of.  I assume you’re familiar with GRU Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, who provided the U.S. with data on the U.S.S.R.’s capabilities and intentions?  This information enabled us to call Krushchev’s bluff.  Fanatics?  Nah, we just had an ace in the hole.  And the entire situation could have been avoided if the U.S.S.R. had kept their nukes out of our backyard.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm from a country that did not and does not belong to NATO. I'm from a country that the Soviet Union tried to take over several times, sometimes with war. Yet, we survived the cold war. The bear did not consume us. Why is that if they were so completely evil? Could it be that they were not completely evil, but merely human, having a social experiment which failed? <span id='postcolor'>

First, I never bought into the “evil empire†stuff.  However, the Soviet Union showed a tendency to swallow up countries throughout its history, and not because they were eager to be a part of the “social experiment.† (Unless of course you think the Berlin Wall was built to keep the West Berliners out, in which case all I can say is, “Wow.â€)  As far as Finland not being absorbed, I’m pretty sure the Soviets would have known that there is no way we would stand by while they invaded a Western European country, NATO member or not.  (The idea of “Winter War II†would probably have given the Soviets the heebie-jeebies, anyway.  Heh.)

Semper Fi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Two factors that I can think of:  (1) How are the Israelis supposed to identify the terrorists, who are native to the area; and (2) How do they defend against an enemy who’s literally “dying to kill?â€"

The pals who suicide bomb often come from West Bank or Gaza, don't they? Why the hell do the Israelis let anybody without an ID showing he/she is a jew come into Israel proper? I heard that the pals are not allowed to work in Israel proper anymore, so why are they allowed in to suicide bomb? Are the suicide bombers maybe smuggled over the border? I'd just like to know how it is, could Avon maybe explain the facts?

Anyway, IDF must have some kind of SOP for dealing with potential suicide bombers, because I don't see many suicide attacks on military checkpoints. Or maybe the pals just prefer to attack civvies.

"The Taliban had one month to decide.  They didn’t want to play ball, so they got the bat up their @$$.  And no one here thinks this is a simple solution, it’s just the first stage of what’s going to be a long process."

Oh, that's so very mature. Why does that sound like a bully on the sandbox going: "If you don't give me that toy truck, I'll kick your @$$!" But that's exactly how you are, I guess.

"If you re-read what I’ve been saying about this, my point is that our involvement was due to our NATO responsibilities and not national self-interest.  We keep going back and forth here but I think we’re actually in agreement."

If you're claiming that NATO is not an organization purely about U.S. world domination, I just have to laugh. NATO is all about your national self-interest. If it was not a tool of your domination, but some kind of altruistic help organization like you seem to imply (thus being a bit of a burden for you), why do you fiercely attack anybody who talks about dismantling NATO? Why did you have to object even to euros having their own GPS system?

"War in defense of attacked or oppressed people is the HIGHEST FORM of public service."

I wonder how many of the oppressed people you 'helped' are grateful for your public service. I bet they just love to live in the middle of rubble and unexploded munitions.

"As I’ve stated before, there is a difference in reacting aggressively when provoked and being an aggressor.  Of course we initiated OUR involvement, and attacking is better than the alternative.  I ask again, though, who typically initiates the hostilities we get involved with?"

Look, I know it is easy to gaze at all the past conflicts and say: "Those evil people were having a delicious little war against the oppressed people and then we went in and helped the oppressed people. Hooray for us." It's even easier to forget the price paid: Accidental civilian casualties, soldier casualties (soldiers don't always volunteer for war you know), destroyed infrastructure, famine, plaque, etc... Even a war fought for good reasons is just as deadly. Also, it's not like you ever fought a war because you're so kind. You always did have some nice bonus agenda like oil.

Maybe you should get more patience, talk with the evil people far longer and avoid these 'decisive' air campaigns which tend to be very violent. But I don't know, it's just what I think.

"So we should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq?  What other wars are we talking about?  If history shows anything, it’s that we’re always ready to help a former enemy that “realizes the error of their ways†-- look at Germany and Japan, for heaven’s sake."

Yes you should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq. You know, there are over 22 million people in Iraq. How many of those do you think was really your enemy? Yet, who do you think suffers the consequences of detroyed infrasturcture?

"The Cuban Missile Crisis is the only imminent nuclear showdown that I’m aware of.  I assume you’re familiar with GRU Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, who provided the U.S. with data on the U.S.S.R.’s capabilities and intentions?  This information enabled us to call Krushchev’s bluff.  Fanatics?  Nah, we just had an ace in the hole.  And the entire situation could have been avoided if the U.S.S.R. had kept their nukes out of our backyard."

You can check out all the sixteen cases in here: Imminent nuclear showdowns

Interestingly enough, you were the ones threatening with nukes in most cases. Sounds pretty fanatic to me.

"First, I never bought into the “evil empire†stuff.  However, the Soviet Union showed a tendency to swallow up countries throughout its history, and not because they were eager to be a part of the “social experiment.† (Unless of course you think the Berlin Wall was built to keep the West Berliners out, in which case all I can say is, “Wow.â€)  As far as Finland not being absorbed, I’m pretty sure the Soviets would have known that there is no way we would stand by while they invaded a Western European country, NATO member or not.  (The idea of “Winter War II†would probably have given the Soviets the heebie-jeebies, anyway.  Heh.)"

It's good that you don't believe the 'evil empire' shit. But really, yours and their politics are not that different. The soviets maybe took over some countries by force, but you did it and still do it by the trash culture you export everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining against your cultural conquest, I don't care. I'm just pointing out that you are swallowing up other countries all the time.

So funnily enough, the soviets never conquered us, but you did. They're showing fucking 'Cheaters' and 'Divorce Court' in our telly now.  biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 09 2002,10:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This all sounds very civ 3 indeed.<span id='postcolor'>

Ha. Very much so, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 09 2002,09:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"If you re-read what I’ve been saying about this, my point is that our involvement was due to our NATO responsibilities and not national self-interest.  We keep going back and forth here but I think we’re actually in agreement."

If you're claiming that NATO is not an organization purely about U.S. world domination, I just have to laugh. NATO is all about your national self-interest. If it was not a tool of your domination, but some kind of altruistic help organization like you seem to imply (thus being a bit of a burden for you), why do you fiercely attack anybody who talks about dismantling NATO? Why did you have to object even to euros having their own GPS system?

<span id='postcolor'>

I don't agree with you on that Oligo. NATO is a mutual interest organization. It is American dominated but all the countries involved have their interests. We Europeans share a number of interests with the Americans, and we profit from the Americans enforcing them (oil anybody?). Of course USA profits the most from NATO, and is therefor agains the dismantlement of it or independent European defense efforts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"War in defense of attacked or oppressed people is the HIGHEST FORM of public service."

I wonder how many of the oppressed people you 'helped' are grateful for your public service. I bet they just love to live in the middle of rubble and unexploded munitions.

<span id='postcolor'>

There is always a problem when your operation don't go too well. Kosovo is a prime example. For the Albanians things got much worse when NATO started bombing. More people were killed from alliance bombs then from the Serbs. The capital of Kosovo, Pristina was also severely bombed. There are also great problems with unexploded munitions. Of 23,000 bombs dropped about 87%  exploded.

We can at least say that the intentions were good.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"As I’ve stated before, there is a difference in reacting aggressively when provoked and being an aggressor.  Of course we initiated OUR involvement, and attacking is better than the alternative.  I ask again, though, who typically initiates the hostilities we get involved with?"

Look, I know it is easy to gaze at all the past conflicts and say: "Those evil people were having a delicious little war against the oppressed people and then we went in and helped the oppressed people. Hooray for us." It's even easier to forget the price paid: Accidental civilian casualties, soldier casualties (soldiers don't always volunteer for war you know), destroyed infrastructure, famine, plaque, etc... Even a war fought for good reasons is just as deadly. Also, it's not like you ever fought a war because you're so kind. You always did have some nice bonus agenda like oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but the US has never started a war directly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe you should get more patience, talk with the evil people far longer and avoid these 'decisive' air campaigns which tend to be very violent. But I don't know, it's just what I think.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, won't work. Take the talibans for instance. They knew that the US had the will and the means to do them serious harm, yet they ignored it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"So we should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq?  What other wars are we talking about?  If history shows anything, it’s that we’re always ready to help a former enemy that “realizes the error of their ways†-- look at Germany and Japan, for heaven’s sake."

Yes you should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq. You know, there are over 22 million people in Iraq. How many of those do you think was really your enemy? Yet, who do you think suffers the consequences of detroyed infrasturcture?

<span id='postcolor'>

A war is a war and shit happens. You can't prevent that. The only objection that I have is the attempt to justify everything by pretending you do it out of altruistic reasons. Just say as it is: Give us what we want or we'll kick the living #@!! out of you, since we have the biggest baddest military around.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

You can check out all the sixteen cases in here: Imminent nuclear showdowns

<span id='postcolor'>

Very interesting reading. I never knew for instance that Grobachev proposed in 1985 to get rid of all the worlds nuclear weapons by the year 2000. I wonder who stopped that?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's good that you don't believe the 'evil empire' shit. But really, yours and their politics are not that different. The soviets maybe took over some countries by force, but you did it and still do it by the trash culture you export everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining against your cultural conquest, I don't care. I'm just pointing out that you are swallowing up other countries all the time.

<span id='postcolor'>

Don't kid yourself. We want that trash culture. It is a free world market. The things we don't want, we don't import (I hear that Disneyland in Paris and McDonalds in France is loosing money big time. USA is a very stron industrial nation and we want their stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oligo:

Wow.  I've been almost completely pre-empted by Denoir; who’d believe it?  Just a few thoughts to add:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or maybe the pals just prefer to attack civvies.<span id='postcolor'>

Ding Ding Ding.  We have a winner.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"If you don't give me that toy truck, I'll kick your @$$!" But that's exactly how you are, I guess.<span id='postcolor'>

Don’t trivialize the issue.  If we or our allies are attacked we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat.  THAT’S exactly how we are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's even easier to forget the price paid: Accidental civilian casualties, soldier casualties (soldiers don't always volunteer for war you know), destroyed infrastructure, famine, plaque, etc... <span id='postcolor'>

It’s impossible to forget.  No one likes warfare, we just happen to be skilled at it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even a war fought for good reasons is just as deadly.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep.  That’s why we don’t like them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes you should have rebuilt Hanoi and Iraq. You know, there are over 22 million people in Iraq. How many of those do you think was really your enemy? Yet, who do you think suffers the consequences of detroyed infrasturcture?<span id='postcolor'>

This might be hard for you to believe but soldiers don’t like to see civilians suffer.  Maybe the Iraquis would be better served if their leader expended the same resources on their welfare as he does on his presidential palaces and pursuit of WMDs?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Imminent nuclear showdowns<span id='postcolor'>

Someone’s using the word “imminent†loosely.  And clearly no bias in THAT link, especially the ending editorial.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But really, yours and their politics are not that different. The soviets maybe took over some countries by force, but you did it and still do it by the trash culture you export everywhere.<span id='postcolor'>

Comparing our exportation of Big Macs to France with Uncle Joe’s intentional starvation of tens of millions of his own people isn’t valid, IMHO.  And my sympathies about the TV.

Semper Fi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denoir, just wanted to add:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Give us what we want or we'll kick the living #@!! out of you, since we have the biggest baddest military around.<span id='postcolor'>

What we usually want is TO NOT BE PROVOKED INTO WAR.  But when we don’t get “what we want,†we'll play the hand we’re dealt.

Semper Fi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, all the US wants is democracy for everyone and goodwill towards man...it's not like they've spent the last 40 years sticking their political penis into countries all over the world where it doesn't belong, or been caught funding select terrorist factions in the past or anything, is it?  smile.gif

Actually, just forget I said this, this little pissing contest has been going on long enough already, and i haven't seen either "side" give an inch. I just that the whole "USA home of democracy" rhetoric gets my back up. Sorry. Please just take this as a joke and not a serious comment. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ May 10 2002,03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">spent the last 40 years sticking their political penis into countries all over the world where it doesn't belong,<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, very nice metaphor smile.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Actually, just forget I said this, this little pissing contest has been going on long enough already, and i haven't seen either "side" give an inch.<span id='postcolor'>

I get very insulted by that. Now I was indeed very kind to the US in my last post smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 09 2002,21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can check out all the sixteen cases in here: Imminent nuclear showdowns

<span id='postcolor'>

Very interesting reading. I never knew for instance that Grobachev proposed in 1985 to get rid of all the worlds nuclear weapons by the year 2000. I wonder who stopped that?<span id='postcolor'>

General Guba of course! tounge.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's good that you don't believe the 'evil empire' shit. But really, yours and their politics are not that different. The soviets maybe took over some countries by force, but you did it and still do it by the trash culture you export everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining against your cultural conquest, I don't care. I'm just pointing out that you are swallowing up other countries all the time.

<span id='postcolor'>

Don't kid yourself. We want that trash culture. It is a free world market. The things we don't want, we don't import (I hear that Disneyland in Paris and McDonalds in France is loosing money big time. USA is a very stron industrial nation and we want their stuff.<span id='postcolor'>

I do believe that more and more people grow tired of US influence - in many many forms - in our everyday, at least European, life. It seems like cheap US culture is most popular amongst younger people; maybe it is because most of it is based on the same few illusions that one see through, and grows tired of, with time. Probably much of the 'anti American' influences spreading can be traced to US export of culture and media worldwide (I heard that some US media company (or the government) wanted to start broadcasting  radio specially for the Muslim countries; while the Arabic Al Jazirah wants to broadcast TV news in USA - wonders who is most likely to succeed wink.gif )

The thing I personally am most frustrated with is the dozens of US 'advertising' spam mails I recieve everyday in the mailboxes. They can be a little amusingly stupid sometimes, but most of the time only very frustrating shit that furthermore primary relates only to US citisens..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 09 2002,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 08 2002,16:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that's the problem - we tolerate biased, sided and emotional journalism.<span id='postcolor'>

It is not just a question of tolerating biased journalism. Sun Tzu wrote already in 500 BC in his book "Art of War" how intel is always notoriously unreliable. The problem is that we have no fix reference except our interpretations of our own experiences to judge information provided by others. Even if you accept that there is such a thing as an objective reality, you always have some form of interpretation in the end. All the information that we get has been processed and interpreted by human beings.

One other basic premissis of intel analysis is that ones greatest enemy is common sense.

Common sense is our way of trying to exrapolate our own every day experiences to things we actually have no clues about. Incorrect assumptions that might seem rational are one major source of error.

Averaging the information that you get from multiple sources (preferably infinitely many) can give you a clue of an average interpretation of an event. This doesn't at all mean that it is correct, and most of all *you* are interpreting the data in the end. Our Neural Networks in the brain process data by generalisation of previous data. That means that information is processed in different ways depending on who you are and what you have experienced. This is relevant since there is no value in raw data. The value of information comes with its interpretation.

Another problem is the lack of completeness. We have infinitely data to choose from when we select what to report. There are of course norms for what you report if you say are covering an election. In the end it comes down to personal opinions of what is relevant and what is not. Even if we all thought alike it would be impossible since the world is to complex to be handeled in a determinstic way (event A leads to event B that leads to event C, therefor A leads to C). We simply have no theoretical way of knowing all the facts that are related to an event.

So when people are claiming that 10000000 people were killed in Jemen or 10 ppl were killed think about this: Have you ever experienced first hand killings of > 10 people? Do you have any actual real life reference to anything similar? What is the source for this information in the first place? How do you know the validity of that source? What are the ommitted facts (10000000 people were killed in Jemen the last 1000000 years by natural causes).  And finally, what is the point of this information. What is the intended interpretation of it. What is your interpretation of it?<span id='postcolor'>

I recon news has all too much in common with entertainment. It should be easy, concrete and trustworthy (among other official goals that they dont live up to). Resulting in dogmatic and pointless news. I remember Pete writing (about reasons to argue for war) something like "sometimes i wonder if you just want to see more cool military stuff on the news". It might be partly due to that news during the last decades has been in hard competition with other entertainment; but I recon that they never has been particulary good.

I wrote an essay last year about Swedish tv news (analysing many hours of Aktuellt, Rapport, TV3 Direkt and Nyheterna) and came to the conclusion that the in common sense 3 more 'serious' newsprograms really was not much, or at all, 'better' than the less 'serious' TV3 Direkt - only more dogmatic.

The entertainment factor in news rather seems to be in our 'news ideology' - what we want is what we are used to get and are considering as good. Or I would even dare to say that it is a matter of western culture in general; the most important thing in the western culture (and of course, but in other forms, in other cultures) is illusion, and it seems like more and more of our illusions are falling to pieces - giving us a hard, but creative, time in the future.

What I mean in this case is that officially we are to believe that society wants us to be reflecting and objectively informed citisens - but since that might not be compatible with more important interests that is not what is happening. I regard news rather as a form of 'adult school' that works by the same ideologies as the regular school system - primary for the best interests of society. The responsible-feeling and honestly-meaning journalist have no chance but to follow the general ideology.

What Denoir writes above about the impossible objectivity and false common sense is crucial. The thing I recon is most important, and that today does not seem to exists, in news is humble SELF CRITICISM as a big part when reporting news. But in our time when the news progams wants to be the best, most reliable and interesting - and the viewer moreover want easy and actionladen news - it seems like a long way to go....

If the journalists were to be openly self critic (towards the viewer/reader) about their own position in the matter, the sources chosen, people participating etc - social sciences would no longer be nessesary; the viewer/reader would not just be passive consumers of information (and just strengthen ruling/popular paradigms/ideologies), but stimulated to really reflect and think about the matter in a creative way. But that is probably a news form for a far more developed society than ours, and would not work in the pathetic society we live in now, actually such people are dangerous to our society..............

Well, enough of my dogmatic bullshit for today. Goodnight! smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 10 2002,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Actually, just forget I said this, this little pissing contest has been going on long enough already, and i haven't seen either "side" give an inch.<span id='postcolor'>

I get very insulted by that. Now I was indeed very kind to the US in my last post smile.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry Denoir, actually I wasn't thinking of you, more certain pro-Israeil and pro-Palestine posters in this thread... biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ May 10 2002,04:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The thing I personally am most frustrated with is the dozens of US 'advertising' spam mails I recieve everyday in the mailboxes. They can be a little amusingly stupid sometimes, but most of the time only very frustrating shit that furthermore primary relates only to US citisens..<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it is a problem with Internet that the biggest market for ecommerce is the US one. Therefor all the advertisments that we other get are entirely useless.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I recon news has all too much in common with entertainment. It should be easy, concrete and trustworthy (among other official goals that they dont live up to). Resulting in dogmatic and pointless news. I remember Pete writing (about reasons to argue for war) something like "sometimes i wonder if you just want to see more cool military stuff on the news". It might be partly due to that news during the last decades has been in hard competition with other entertainment; but I recon that they never has been particulary good.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is a very, very good point. By commercializing the TV networks and given people the option of choosing what they want to watch we have created a supply/demand situation that is really killing the objectivity. Our interest in the world news is also a problem. We watch it because we find it interesting, not because we can relate to it.

If we take the WTC for example. There is no way I could emotionally feel empathy for the people that got killed. It was too abstract and far away. I was very sorry for them on an intellectual level, but that means very little. The thing that glued people to the news was the extraordinarity of the event. How often do you get to see planes slam into skyscrapers? In that way the horrible reality gives in for curiosity and becomes a form of morbid entertainment.

I remember some friends saying after the attack that it is a pity that none of the planes crashed into the White House because that would have been cool to see.

They said this not because they are evil people or hate the US or something like that. They just, as the most of us, had no way of relating to that event; it was so much off scale. The closest thing that one has seen before are bad Jerry Bruckheimer movies. The further away you are from the epicentre the less you feel; the less you feel, the less you care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US doesnt have alot of control over the internet yet, and when they finnally do, those pop up ads and junkmail may dissapear but everyone will miss out on something. The government will pass some stupid laws that will hurt the industry and might come back and hurt gaming or something like that because those ads pay for almost everything even though no one clicks on them. It might not impact you too much if you dont live in the US but realize you will be affected when the US gets control of the internet whether you live here or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×