Printable View
I should say that French television is doing this time an excellent job, maybe because the country is not involved in the war. They use sources from both sides, they criticize the images they receive, they put them in the context of the ongoing 'psychological war'.
It's the first time I see them doing their job seriously. If you understand French, you should watch the news on TV5, even if you disagree with the disastrous position of our government.
A misinterpretation then. ;) Since you had said previously news should be unbiased, and that this was difficult in today's era, it suggested that at one point it was unbiased. Good that you read a lot, though. :)Quote:
Originally posted by soopaman@27 March 2003 - 09:44
...I did say "should be unbiased" I didn't say it wasn't!!...
:ninja:
I think that it is very important that especially young people see that war means suffering, that it is not a video game and what the word "casualties" really means.
As a mere figure, they might look as acceptable or unavoidable as we can comprehend or think to comprehend.
As a picture like this, you start to understand what it really means. Another important thing to understand is that soldiers being killed and maimed are also human beings, with families and futures which are destroyed - they are victims too.
As long as we manage to close our eyes to the real face of war we manage to justify it more easily. That of course is why the US media aren't particularly keen on pictures like that and are not showing them, for they feel it would give the wrong message and could undermine the morale and support for the troops - the BBC is a little more balanced and has more trust in the ability of their viewers to form their own opinions.
Some of the arabic stations are trying to balance out what they perceive as lopsided reporting of the western media.
None of the media coverage can really show and give you a feeling for what war is really like. You would have to be there. No picture of a destroyed building can give you an idea of the feelings of people who were next to the building when it exploded who might not have been hit or injured physically, especially if they are children. Read the UNICEF reports.
Memories of WW2 still haunt people who have lived through it, although it happened more than 50 years ago. I know that from personal experience, since I have dealings with many elderly people through my line of work. My mum for instance has been raped as a 14 year old by 12 Russian soldiers and had to flee from her place of birth, never being able to return, her boyfriend has survived Stalingrad and was a POW for 5 years thereafter. He has told me that no movie of Stalingrad can tell you what it feels like if one of your friends is slowly bleeding to death in your arms. That they were on the wrong side doesn't matter. The wounds the war has inflicted on them have never healed completely. War is not troop movements, victories and defeat. It's a human tragedy, created by people who tell us what is unavoidable, necessary and just in their view. It is faceless and abstract as long as manage to keep it that way. For those who have to live through it, it is something else. No-one has asked the "casualties" if they were willing to pay that price for what others think was necessary to procure their freedom.
I hope and pray that the war will be over soon and that everyone makes an effort to understand what is happening without closing their eyes and hearts.
If you want a couple of good, relevant books to read try these:
BioHazard by Ken Alibek
Unholy Babylon by Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander
BioHazard is written by the former Head of the Soviet Bio Weapons Programme. He says, and I'm paraphrasing here, that after the break-up of the Soviet Union at least a 1/3 of his research scientists went to work for Saddam Hussein. Other than that, the book is so fucking interesting and really quite scary. On a related subject try The Hot Zone by Richard Preston about U.S Bio Weapons research. Another very scary book.
Unholy Babylon is about the Wests support both blatant and covert in the years preceding the Gulf War and after it. Quite thought provoking.
Is there a books section on this Forum? If not, why not? Computers, Music, Games and Films ain't everything!!
:ph34r:
Talking about books and Stalingrad... you should read Vassily Grossman's 'Life and Destiny' (not sure of the English title). It's a very good novel about war & about dictatorial systems.
I don't know what some ppl spect to see, but this is a war. Maybe that censure in the states and manipulated information doesn't allow them to see the full picture. There won't be any doubt to shoot innocent ppl or send a bomb to the market to kill civilians. That's the truth.
Edit: typo
There may be soon. :DQuote:
Originally posted by soopaman@27 March 2003 - 10:45
...Is there a books section on this Forum? If not, why not? Computers, Music, Games and Films ain't everything!!
:ph34r:
:ninja:
i don't expect war to be any of those three, however, aid is being delivered to starving iraqi children <_<Quote:
Originally posted by eng60340@26 March 2003 - 23:47
perhaps you expect war to be
1) US soldiers giving candies to smiling starving iraqi children
2) US putting out oil fires
3) US clearing mines
i would like to point out that NONE of this need to take place if US has been a little more diplomatic.
the truth is.
war is ugly, messy business.
it should be avoided as much as possible.
the way i see it, this war is unjust, illegal and immoral
the iraqis have compromised time and again.
(what ?! you want to check our palaces ? NO ! .. ummm. very well then)
(what ?! you want us to disarm our missiles ? NO ! .. umm very well then)
and etc.
the goal post just keeps shifting with each compromise.
...
Most of the world can see that it is US that is pushing for war.
.. and now they just want the world to see the nice side of war ?
*disgusted *
all of this must take place, as saddam does not provide food to his people, and is extremely stalinist. why did it take so long to let inspectors in? o wait, to hide everything.
there are no iraqis giving their input about the war, let me tell you why. Most of them greet the war, but if they were to say that, they would be publicly executed. a woman who waved to british forces was hung in the middle of the city. there are no protests, because if you disagree with saddam, then you are killed. why do the iraqis have 3000 chemical suits and nerve gas antidotes? surely they aren't expecting the U.S. to use nerve gas, who would use it then? o wait... maybe saddam, who would also use it on his own people.
i'm sure you didn't read all that, but whatever, get a stronger defense and then reply.
edit: o and the english aljazeera site was hacked by hackers in protest of them showing the executed POW'S, the site was replaced with and american flag :lol:
we have hundreds of Iraqi POW'S, but we don't publicly execute them or execute them at all <_<
some points to take note.
i agree.
1) saddam is a dictator
2) saddam used WMD on his people 12+ yrs ago
3) saddam had and still has WMD.
-----
but that doesn't justify a war that could potentially
1) kill many civilians because of guns/missiles
2) kill many civilians because of lack of water/food/hygiene/disease
3) destroy infrastructure of iraq
what has our saddam done in the past 12 years ?
he is in a box. trying his best to take revenge..
but he can't ! cos the US has brought UN inspectors to disrupt his progress!
--
guess who will be paying for the war cost at the end of the day ??
probably lots of american companies will get lucrative transport,reconstruction, oil contracts..
i suspect the iraqi pple will have to pay for the cost of the invasion, rebuilding of infrastructures etc. to "thank" the invaders for liberating them.
this war is an invasion.
the iraqi people do not welcome democracy that comes from the wings of tomahawk missiles !!!!!
..
i assert that there is a better way to deal with iraq rather than war. it's costly (dollars/lives) and also.
1) it does not solve the root cause of american resentment
2) gives precendent for america's to "liberate" ANY nation they don't like
3) will probably result in more terrorism. ( unless america can DESTORY and subjugate ALL rogue nations... more wars? )
1) Civilians are killed publicly on a daily basis for their opposing views of saddam (their children to)Quote:
Originally posted by eng60340@27 March 2003 - 16:30
but that doesn't justify a war that could potentially
1) kill many civilians because of guns/missiles
2) kill many civilians because of lack of water/food/hygiene/disease
3) destroy infrastructure of iraq
what has our saddam done in the past 12 years ?
he is in a box. trying his best to take revenge..
but he can't ! cos the US has brought UN inspectors to disrupt his progress!
--
guess who will be paying for the war cost at the end of the day ??
probably lots of american companies will get lucrative transport,reconstruction, oil contracts..
i suspect the iraqi pple will have to pay for the cost of the invasion, rebuilding of infrastructures etc. to "thank" the invaders for liberating them.
this war is an invasion.
the iraqi people do not welcome democracy that comes from the wings of tomahawk missiles !!!!!
..
i assert that there is a better way to deal with iraq rather than war. it's costly (dollars/lives) and also.
1) it does not solve the root cause of american resentment
2) gives precendent for america's to "liberate" ANY nation they don't like
3) will probably result in more terrorism. ( unless america can DESTORY and subjugate ALL rogue nations... more wars? )
2) if iraqi men do not enter the war, their familes are executed and then they are executed
3) civilians die on a daily basis because of lack of food/water/hygiene/disease
4) there is no infrastructure of iraq.
America is currently trying to take on the responsibility of rebuilding iraq (they actually don't want any help). and since America is the largest economy of the world, this will happen easily. there is an oil for food program where any oil that american companies buy, the money must be used to provide food to the iraqi people.
1) most of the other countries hate America because they are JEALOUS
2) who said america doesn't like iraq? america doesn't like saddam and his army in control of iraq. many countries need liberating to a democracy
3 if you don't do anything, the threat of terrorism is even higher.