Lol… Some of u Americans r blinded by politicans… Those that refuse to believe the facts in Farhenit 9/11 s just a mere example of American ignorance (republicans only/Bush voters)…
Another ticked off Canadian insulting America…Huh…
asim,
you got the first 2 letters right, now fill in the rest as_ _ _ _ _ . If you fill them in correctly, you win a free roll of toilet paper to clean up with!
[quote]SStarling wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Well first it gave the U.S. sizeable oil fields and with that comes great power and untold wealth(for a relatively few).
Oh come on! You sound like you actually believe that Fahrenheit 9/11 crap! That movie has all the accuracy of the flat earth theory.
[/quote]
What’s so hard about believing in high level cronyism? You act as though F 9/11 is where the history of war began. You are woefully inept in your knowledge of wars and proxy wars fought by this country.
You ahve to seek out alternative media as a counterpoint to the the propaganda that masquerades as news by the mass media.
[quote]Asim wrote:
Lol… Some of u Americans r blinded by politicans… Those that refuse to believe the facts in Farhenit 9/11 s just a mere example of American ignorance (republicans only/Bush voters)… [/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What’s so hard about believing in high level cronyism? You act as though F 9/11 is where the history of war began. You are woefully inept in your knowledge of wars and proxy wars fought by this country.
You ahve to seek out alternative media as a counterpoint to the the propaganda that masquerades as news by the mass media.[/quote]
You are assuming I haven’t sought out alternative media. tsk tsk. When it comes to trusting media, one of my first rules of thumb is: “is it state sponsored?” (England’s BBC, for example, among many other Old-European nations, have “state sponsored”, which pretty much means state controlled)
Also, remember that Moore is an EXCELLENT propagandist. He mixes in SOME truths to give credence to the whole movie, classic propaganda as perfected by Nazi Germany. I’ve seen F 9/11 and, to get a counter view: FahrenHYPE 9/11. Which debunks Moore’s movie. ( http://www.fahrenhype911.com )
So, I beleive I have a pretty good grasp of the ‘facts’ behind F 9/11. I know which side of the Coin of Truth Moore’s on. It ain’t pretty.
[quote]Ursus wrote:
Asim wrote:
Lol… Some of u Americans r blinded by politicans… Those that refuse to believe the facts in Farhenit 9/11 s just a mere example of American ignorance (republicans only/Bush voters)…
Zeppelin795 wrote:
What’s so hard about believing in high level cronyism? You act as though F 9/11 is where the history of war began. You are woefully inept in your knowledge of wars and proxy wars fought by this country.
You ahve to seek out alternative media as a counterpoint to the the propaganda that masquerades as news by the mass media.
You are assuming I haven’t sought out alternative media. tsk tsk. When it comes to trusting media, one of my first rules of thumb is: “is it state sponsored?” (England’s BBC, for example, among many other Old-European nations, have “state sponsored”, which pretty much means state controlled)
Also, remember that Moore is an EXCELLENT propagandist. He mixes in SOME truths to give credence to the whole movie, classic propaganda as perfected by Nazi Germany. I’ve seen F 9/11 and, to get a counter view: FahrenHYPE 9/11. Which debunks Moore’s movie. ( http://www.fahrenhype911.com )
So, I beleive I have a pretty good grasp of the ‘facts’ behind F 9/11. I know which side of the Coin of Truth Moore’s on. It ain’t pretty. [/quote]
You make a point refering to “state sponsored” media. But I’m not talking about the BBC. I’m talking about worker-run outlets which accept very little if any state or corporate funding. You also miss a larger more pervasive side of propaganda. Namely corporate sponsored media. Such as NY Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, ABC, etc. These larger organizations set the general framework in which the local medias more or less adhere to. They select topics, frame issues, filter information and most importantly bound up debate within certain limits.
In escense they select, shape, control and restrict the news in order to serve the interests of the dominate elite groups.
As a side note I wouldn’t place Limbaugh that high within the media’s heirarchy. But he is part of the media propaganda machine
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You make a point refering to “state sponsored” media. But I’m not talking about the BBC. I’m talking about worker-run outlets which accept very little if any state or corporate funding. You also miss a larger more pervasive side of propaganda. Namely corporate sponsored media. Such as NY Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, ABC, etc. These larger organizations set the general framework in which the local medias more or less adhere to. They select topics, frame issues, filter information and most importantly bound up debate within certain limits.
In escense they select, shape, control and restrict the news in order to serve the interests of the dominate elite groups.
As a side note I wouldn’t place Limbaugh that high within the media’s heirarchy. But he is part of the media propaganda machine[/quote]
Agreed! All media sources have a certain level of bias/inaccuracy. Does that mean we trust none of it? I listen to many sides, from many sources (admittedly from my own filter of experience and philosophy). And through this process, begin to get a better idea of which sources can be trusted. I guess many do the same, even if it leads to different trusted sources.
I think we can all take comfort that most of us want a better life, country, and world. We just disagree on how to get there… 
That excludes the Islamofascists, who believe it’s either their way or death. The safety of the rest of the planet resides on destroying them, utterly.
[quote]Ursus wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
You make a point refering to “state sponsored” media. But I’m not talking about the BBC. I’m talking about worker-run outlets which accept very little if any state or corporate funding. You also miss a larger more pervasive side of propaganda. Namely corporate sponsored media. Such as NY Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, ABC, etc. These larger organizations set the general framework in which the local medias more or less adhere to. They select topics, frame issues, filter information and most importantly bound up debate within certain limits.
In escense they select, shape, control and restrict the news in order to serve the interests of the dominate elite groups.
As a side note I wouldn’t place Limbaugh that high within the media’s heirarchy. But he is part of the media propaganda machine
Agreed! All media sources have a certain level of bias/inaccuracy. Does that mean we trust none of it? I listen to many sides, from many sources (admittedly from my own filter of experience and philosophy). And through this process, begin to get a better idea of which sources can be trusted. I guess many do the same, even if it leads to different trusted sources.
I think we can all take comfort that most of us want a better life, country, and world. We just disagree on how to get there…
That excludes the Islamofascists, who believe it’s either their way or death. The safety of the rest of the planet resides on destroying them, utterly.[/quote]
Perhaps I’m not making myself clear. I’m not talking about innocent bias/inaccuracy. I’m speaking of a concerted effort to prevent citizens from finding out the reality of what goes on around them in a political sense. A delibrate falsification of history, a suppresion of information, in essence - propaganda! The public is being maniputated and guided to what benefits the elites.This is far beyond typical bias that everyone has to a certain degree.
Interesting article in the Army Times.
Apparently the troops don’t share the opinion of the media…wonder how that happened?
Poll shows troops in support of war
By Robert Hodierne, Army Times
Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.
Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.
But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half say they expect to be there more than five years.
In addition, 87%% say they’re satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they’d leave the service.
Compared with last year, the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged.
A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%.
The findings are part of the annual Military Times Poll, which this year included 1,423 active-duty subscribers to Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.
The subscribers were randomly surveyed by mail in late November and early December. The poll has a margin of error of +/?2.6%.
Among the poll’s other findings:
?75% oppose a military draft.
?60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.
?12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.