News The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

[drizzle]

So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint? I don't think so.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are.

I hope this reveals my point, I used to hate Jews by any means, even if I loved a piece of jewel, then knew it was made by some Jew guy I directly get enraged [that’s because the Palestinian people and how they suffer due to Israel’s actions], but I then searched, read, watched and find that Jews have nothing to do with it, and decided not to judge anyone unless I do some effort to find the truth and hear from them.

 

[JaredJames]

"So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are. "

So, me and you, simply can watch both and determine which would make more sense..
Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not, but you surely can watch Aljazera in stead of CNN every while and so..
Or, if you care to know which shows more facts than biased news, do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense.

BTW, if you watch a channel like Alarabiya, you won`t see any real world difference than what you watch on CNN, because its funded by Americans; and many, many, many other channels will be the same... it looks like some american parties are doing something wrong and trying to hide/twist the facts.

Look, everyone is biased (we've been through this on another thread). Which means everyone will put a certain slant on the news they produce. You saying "so you can know which is biased and which is not" is rubbish. Both will have bias, however the one that agrees with yourself will not be seen by you as bias. That DOES NOT make it better than our 'western' news. Yes I hate our media for hyping things up too much. But I can't see how you can claim they are so much better (I'm watching the Aljaera news channel now).

 

[wajed]

Look, everyone is biased (we've been through this on another thread). Which means everyone will put a certain slant on the news they produce.

I didn`t say anything against that.

You saying "so you can know which is biased and which is not" is rubbish. Both will have bias, however the one that agrees with yourself will not be seen by you as bias.

I said this:

Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not,

and also this:

do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense..

That DOES NOT make it better than our 'western' news.

I, defintely, didn`t say there is any news better than another; well, I have my opinion concerning this, but I didn`t post/say anything.

Yes I hate our media for hyping things up too much. But I can't see how you can claim they are so much better (I'm watching the Aljaera news channel now).

I`m really sorry, but I didn`t say that.
but as an advice, I`d suggest you do some comparisons between Aljazera and CNN.
another opinion: if some news make more sense to you, it doesn`t mean its the truth, because of the society you are raised in, and because of many other factors.

 

[JaredJames]

I do apologise for the rant on bias Wajed, I misread Not as Note so you can see why I went the wrong way there.

 

[wajed]

O,O
Its ok, lol :)

 

[NBAJam100]

Oh come on... 'serve your country' means to kill the enemy. I mean people on the front line who are given weapons etc...

Ok, so would this make more sense to you:

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, so would this make more sense to you:

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

Surely he'd at least try my solutions:

The OP seems contradictory, 'we should have military but only as a last resort to defend the country'. Now I don't want to point out the flaming obvious here, but how would you go about defending off an attacking force (attempting to kill your people) without killing them? Set up a nice road block and hope it does the trick? Brick up the Channel Tunnel and hope they don't remember boats? Or failing all else, strap a nice big sign to the cliffs at Dover saying "if you attack, we'll have no choice but to get really, really angry"? Honestly, I would rather see British troops wade across the English channel and take on an attacking force in an already conquered (yep, you can see where this is going) France than let it get to our borders and do even more damage, endangering more innocent lives.

 

[Astronuc]

Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

What wrong information? The Taliban (under direction of Mullah Omar) attacked other groups in Afghanistan, e.g. the Hazaras who lived in the middle of Afghanistan and near Kabul. The Uzbeks, Tadjiks and Hazaras did not attack Kandahar, but rather Taliban and their allies attacked Kabul, Mazar-e sharif, Herat and numerous small towns. As I understand it, in Mazar-e sharif, troops fought against the Taliban, but when the Taliban returned to Mazar-e sharif, the Taliban targeted everyone, including civilians.

Between May and July 1997, the Taliban unsuccessfully attempted to take Mazar, leading to approximately 3,000 Taliban soldiers being massacred by Abdul Malik and his Shia followers. In retaliation for this incident, the Taliban on August 8, 1998, was reported to have returned and led a six-day killing frenzy of Hazaras, a report which was refuted in a report that pointed out that all claims of military deaths were sourced and referenced, but the accounts of civilian massacres were not attributable to any reliable source and were allegedly fabricated by enemies of their rule.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazari_Sharif

While the narrative is from Wikipedia, its content is consistent with other accounts.

I am also aware that Shah Masoud's Tadjik's attack the Hazaras south of Kabul before the Taliban advanced north from Kandahar. And Hikmetyar's forces have fought with Masud's forces and perhaps Rashid Dostum's forces. And all the forces of Hikmetyar, Dostom, Masud, Ismael Khan, and other warlords have engaged in corrupt behavior.

And certainly al-Qaida has decided to strike/attack US and western interests throughout the world: attack on USN Cole in Yemen, the attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on WTC in NYCity (Sept 11, 2001), . . . .

And don`t only blame these people. Why? because everyone has participated.
Some don`t even bother theirselves to spend some time showing the truth to others.. (which is important, and can help stop the fighting)
The troops DO kill.. and many times for silly reasons.. but anyway let's talk in general..
The Qaida DO kill..and many times because of the US politics...but in general.. yeah they DO kill..
Those who command the troops to go and kill.. SURE, they are the most guilty of these..

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply reporting according to my understanding.

I don't agree with US or western methods concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, but then I'm not in a position of make or influence the decisions. In numerous cases, US (and probably UK/Nato) air forces have bombed or strafed innocent civilians because of faulty information, or simply due to reckless conduct.

Kai Eide, chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has called for 'an urgent review' of US operations in Afghanistan. That certainly comes late - well after the US airstrike in Azizabad last August in which 90+ civilians (mostly women and children) were killed by US bombs, and just after the airstrike in the village of Granai in Bala Buluk District of Farah province this past May.

Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?

I don't trust those sources cited. I prefer to get my information for Afghan and Pakistani journalists, and westerners who have lived or worked in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.

I hope you understand you just sacrifice your life by big amount doing this..
you may get hit by a US shell..
a UK shell..
other forces shell..
Resistence shell..
Terrorists shell..
THATS HOW IRAQI PEOPLE LIVE.

The only way to be sure about events in any part of the world is to witness those events and places in person. Yes it is dangerous.

 

[Gokul43201]

Another point that he hasn't thought through is that if it weren't for the US and UK military that he despises, he'd be writing this in German. Of course, that assumes that he's not Jewish, or Roma, or Eastern European, or... In that case, if he was very, very lucky, he might be a slave laborer or subject of medical experiments somewhere, but more likely he'd be six feet under, his skin used to make lampshades.

Where did the OP indicate that he would rather condone killing than be writing in German, laboring as a slave or being used to make lampshades? Aren't you just making assumptions about a person you don't know?

 

[wajed]

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

 

[JaredJames]

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

they "threatened" oil supplies

 

[Cyrus]

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

This comment is woefully ignorant of history. No one ever claimed the Iraqis attacked us. Your entire premise is wrong.

 

[JaredJames]

Wajed, do you understand the concept of pre-emptive action?

 

[russ_watters]

Where did the OP indicate that he would rather condone killing than be writing in German, laboring as a slave or being used to make lampshades? Aren't you just making assumptions about a person you don't know?

No. Using overly simplistic platitudes like "killing is wrong" ignores the realities of history that sometimes make it necessary. Vanadium's point - and he said it explicitly - isn't that the OP condones this thinking, but that s/he didn't think it through. It's what I argued as well: if the OP put a little more effort into thinking about this issue, s/he would probably see the nonsensical logical result of the starting premise.

 

[wajed]

What wrong information? The Taliban (under direction of Mullah Omar) ...

lol, sorry sorry sorry, I read "intentionally" as "internationally", and that`s why I said "not an international force"

Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

And certainly al-Qaida has decided to strike/attack US and western interests throughout the world: attack on USN Cole in Yemen, the attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on WTC in NYCity (Sept 11, 2001), . . . .

Yeah, I thought you said "international", and Taliban, unlike AlQaida, doesn`t do international operations.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply reporting according to my understanding.

I don't agree with US or western methods concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, but then I'm not in a position of make or influence the decisions. In numerous cases, US (and probably UK/Nato) air forces have bombed or strafed innocent civilians because of faulty information, or simply due to reckless conduct.

Just to be sure something is clear: it not like "cases".. they happen more usually than to be called "cases".

just giving more examples of how its like there:
A) we heard of some torturing happened in a prison once or twice..
how could the press agencies get some type of information? the information and pictures were leaked out of the prison..
press can`t show us what really happens there..
So, conclusion: If this is only what we heard of and what could be leaked, then how about the things that no one in this whole Earth can hear of or see but the ones in the prisons? there surely happens alot..

B) some american soldiers video-ing their friends (you know.. why not have some fun) - forget what the video is all about, the important is the clips in the video, here it is (please, anyone young enough, don`t open these):

C) (again, why not have some fun.. let's crash some cars):

Again, not that this is all what happens, I`ve just searched for some videos that I remember, and just trying to show you.
And again, I`m only trying to make something clear, not that I`m opposing you concerning what you said.

Kai Eide, chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has called for 'an urgent review' of US operations in Afghanistan. That certainly comes late - well after the US airstrike in Azizabad last August in which 90+ civilians (mostly women and children) were killed by US bombs, and just after the airstrike in the village of Granai in Bala Buluk District of Farah province this past May.

You know, I don`t even trust Kai, I simply can`t, he is just doing attacks there; they invaded Iraq, planning to invade Iran; Israel is handling issues in Lebanon, Palestine; US has control on Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt; so, all of these guys working together, I`d never trust anything they`d say. The first possibility to come in my mind is: press could have captured some pictures and collected enough information on this speicific occurance, so admitting that it happened would make it look like its that rare big mistake that happened; Second possibility to come in my mind is: to make things look more realistic they have to show some errors. Still, All of this doesn`t mean denying that he simply may have felt of how much disastrous the thing that happened and so he got out to announce what happened.

I don't trust those sources cited. I prefer to get my information for Afghan and Pakistani journalists, and westerners who have lived or worked in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.

However, we know in some cases, a limited number of US and UK troops have intentionally brutalized and killed innocent people.

Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?

Sorry, whom do you mean of "we"?

The only way to be sure about events in any part of the world is to witness those events and places in person. Yes it is dangerous.

:) sure sometimes we need to sacrifice; just like the American good soldiers that all they can realise is that they are helping in bringing safety to the world in general and their country in particular.

 

[wajed]

they "threatened" oil supplies

This comment is woefully ignorant of history. No one ever claimed the Iraqis attacked us. Your entire premise is wrong.

I have been wrong to use the word "attack"
but can you justify using the word "threatened" when talking about invading a country and be the reason to kill hundreds of thousands and make the other millions lifes` disastrous? (and consuming big amount of your country`s money etc..)

Anyway, they took enough oil from Iraq that if anybody threatened your oil supplies again you wouldn`t really be that mad at him, you will already be having Iraq`s oil supplies in your country!

 

[JaredJames]

Was it the smilley or the quotation marks that made you take my post seriously?

Also, aside from the video in the first link above, everything is fake, the sounds and soldier voices are dubbed. It is made my someone with a presumably muslim name (shown at end) and so would appear to be a propper ganda film at the very least. A bad thing to post given you are defending them.

 

[wajed]

Was it the smilley or the quotation marks that made you take my post seriously?

At first I coudln`t determine wether you were kidding or not, but Cyrus also commented, so I thought its a mistake I really did.

I`m totally sorry

Also, aside from the video in the first link above, everything is fake, the sounds and soldier voices are dubbed. It is made my someone with a presumably muslim name (shown at end) and so would appear to be a propper ganda film at the very least. A bad thing to post given you are defending them.

that sound is not part of the video (for sure!), its someone added the voice trying to make the video more exciting!
Specially, if you see that women teaching kids stuff like that, u may be able to understand that some people may find this exciting, interesting.. or however they feel.

 

[JaredJames]

At first I coudln`t determine wether you were kidding or not, but Cyrus also commented, so I thought its a mistake I really did.
I`m totally sorry

No worries, by my count that's 1-1 now.

that sound is not part of the video (for sure!), its someone added the voice trying to make the video more exciting!
Specially, if you see that women teaching kids stuff like that, u may be able to understand that some people may find this exciting, interesting.. or however they feel.

That's my problem with things like this. You get people doing this sort of thing (adding sound etc.) and before you know it everyone believes it as true. It's why there are so many misconceptions.
Although granted, in this case the video says it all, the sound was unnecassary

 

[wajed]

Wajed, do you understand the concept of pre-emptive action?

"pre-emptive"

Now I do, I`ve just looked it up.

 

[JaredJames]

"pre-emptive"

Now I do, I`ve just looked it up.

Its just that in certain circumstances it is required.

 

[wajed]

"the sound was unnecassary"
By the way; the sound isn`t added by the one who produced the whole video, that is clear, because he needn`t to, and adding such "topping" on the video wouldn`t add ".0001%" of the reality that guy is trying to show.

That was said just in case you think its him :P (I wouldn`t like it to be 1-2 :P)

 

[JaredJames]

think it may just be 1-2.

but just to clarify, does it say he didn't add it?

regardless, the sound does add to the video if you don't realize it's fake.

 

[Cyrus]

Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

Please get to a valid point quickly. So far, you have yet to make one post of quality and/or substance. You really ought to just stop these types of posts because they are getting to be highly annoying and immature.

 

[wajed]

Its just that in certain circumstances it is required.

I hope that is not how war on Iraq started.

what does justify such a "pre-emptive action"? (I`m asking for facts)

 

[JaredJames]

If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

The current North Korea issue, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted in a pre-emptive strike, however they stopped at pre-emptive action (a blockade of cuba).

 

[wajed]

Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

Please get to a valid point quickly. So far, you have yet to make one post of quality and/or substance. You really ought to just stop these types of posts because they are getting to be highly annoying and immature.

[senario]
A)Is killing ok?
B)when its needed.
A)Did you need it when you invaded Iraq?
B)Yes.
A)Prove.
[/senario]

Concerning media, its what we can base our talk on, you don`t work in the congress, do you? all you know is from the media, so is it the same with me, and probably everyone here. Anyway, if you just don`t want such talk in this thread, I`d stop talking about it, or you can just neglect what I say about media.


concerning the videos being taken out of context, please I need time to watch them and reply, youtube buffers really slow and then it even stops buffering..so please give me time.

If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

The current North Korea issue, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted in a pre-emptive strike, however they stopped at pre-emptive action (a blockade of cuba).

Please let's be straight forward.. do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA?

 

[Cyrus]

[senario]
A)Is killing ok?
B)when its needed.
A)Did you need it when you invaded Iraq?
B)Yes.
A)Prove.
[/senario]

I will give you Donald Rumsfeld's reply to this: "I don't do hypothetical what if's" because arguing speculation serves no point.

Concerning media, its what we can base our talk on, you don`t work in the congress, do you? all you know is from the media, so is it the same with me, and probably everyone here. Anyway, if you just don`t want such talk in this thread, I`d stop talking about it, or you can just neglect what I say about media.

Except I don't watch and post Youtube clips from a guy named AlSaeed (whoever that is) who spliced together stuff from other places and out of context and threw in some background music. I get my information from listening to Congressional hearings and/or government officials: not rehashed information from media outlets, do you?

concerning the videos being taken out of context, please I need time to watch them and reply, youtube buffers really slow and then it even stops buffering..so please give me time.

How about next time you not post Youtube videos made by some kid in Egypt and post something of actual credible value.

 

[Gokul43201]

No. Using overly simplistic platitudes like "killing is wrong" ignores the realities of history that sometimes make it necessary. Vanadium's point - and he said it explicitly - isn't that the OP condones this thinking, but that s/he didn't think it through. It's what I argued as well: if the OP put a little more effort into thinking about this issue, s/he would probably see the nonsensical logical result of the starting premise.

No. The logical result would be, in this case, that the OP would prefer speaking German, laboring as a slave or being turned in lampshades than going to war with the Germans. There is no logical inconsistency.

 

[JaredJames]

[senario]
do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA?

certainly not, i gave you a scenario and then two examples.

the usa took pre-emptive ACTION with the cuban missile crisis averting the need for a pre-emptive STRIKE.

north korea has just threatened the world (or UN), 'interfere with our ships and we will attack'.
so this would be a situation where a STRIKE would be considered if it is proven they are doing something dodgy with their nuclear weapons or the threat from them becomes serious. they are already ignoring the UN telling them to stop using/developing them.

although told "iraq has weapons of mass destruction" they never materialised. the official story is it was about the WMD but in reality there were many other factors. Yes, that was a pre-emptive strike, but not a properly/adequately justified one. and so doesn't fit my example.