Latest Bin Laden tape declared phoney (of course)
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Lock&Light said:
Unlike yours - eh? You pompous wee fuck. Like I said your attempt at humour is as bad as your combacks. As for intelligence, you have none.
fela fan said:
Must be interesting.
From what I know it is like I described, yet I suspect it depends on what type of "journalism" you look at there too. I don't waste time on "pulp media"... I wouldn't know how much of it exists.
In your assessment of the reactions of "travellers" you see the same difference. It is however new to me that the British have an other view then the rest of the Europeans. I thought they were equally balanced informed.
It is also interesting to notice that US travellers react so differently then those who became residents where you live.
I said what I think about it in my posting here and I say this of course coming from a background that makes it almost natural to look beyond the "apparent" and deeper then the surface. However, as non-informed on how such matters play in world history - and hence in this case are played out by the USA - you only need to read the PNAC website for a while to get some idea.
salaam.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
fela fan said:
I have no problem with that. L&L has been running a vendetta against me for some time. It is his problem, not mine.
I merely asked him if his off topic post was meant to be an attempt at levity. He got all superior (as is his wont) and proceeded to attack me because that is what he does. He takes an instant and peculiar dislike to certain posters - probably because they show a great deal more thought and intelligence than he could ever hope to muster.
nino_savatte said:
I can't understand why you think that I'm small.
nino_savatte said:
Oh yes, nino. Of course!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Lock&Light said:
Yes, Lock. Of course.
Aldebaran said:
I think you mean tabloid media mate! Many years ago in britain, there was a great tabloid the Mirror. It told of things that went on in the world. Then once the era of murdoch and the Sun began, world news and informed discussion gave way to celebrity obsession and banality and xenophobic crap.
It is most interesting to me the virtually (totally?) non-existent discussion in the british media over the events of 911. The biggest news event in decades of history and nothing. No-one investigating and writing about any possible USG involvement, no-one getting to the bottom of these dodgy videos that come out in such timely manner, no-one calling for responsibility for the (officially) staggering ineptitude and incompetence of those charged with defending america's skies. Nothing. No-one even bothered about the world's most wanted man of four years ago, obl.
Instead it's celebrity crap, big brother, george galloway, cartoons, and ego-driven commentators waffling on about the latest 'outrage'.
Why does the media ignore this huge story? Any poster out there care to enlighten me? Something with much less impact led to the resignation of a US president amid impeachment calls 30 odd years ago. Investigative journalism led to that.
Seems to me that the art of such journalism these days is well and truly dead in the anglo-american world.
That's right fela: thousands of british and american journalists are being kept silent and prevented from looking into and writing about 911 and all this time the media have ignored 911 - it has been a non-story.
The alternative explanation is that the vast majority of journalists have applied their normal professional standards to the various claims and theories, and finding that they simply don't stand up to scrutiny, have not wanted to write stories accusing various people and agencies of being mass murderers. It should also be noted that 911 has attracted a vast amount of media coverage.
If you want to talk about something that has been ignored how about several million people dying in a war in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last ten or so years? http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news532.htm#6
The alternative explanation is that the vast majority of journalists have applied their normal professional standards to the various claims and theories, and finding that they simply don't stand up to scrutiny, have not wanted to write stories accusing various people and agencies of being mass murderers. It should also be noted that 911 has attracted a vast amount of media coverage.
If you want to talk about something that has been ignored how about several million people dying in a war in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last ten or so years? http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news532.htm#6
TeeJay said:
I suppose it must include linguistics too, since if not, that would make the program even more amazingly one-sided (and simple since only about one language which is the first language at that) to be occupied with during a whole academic education.
But I am hijacking the thread ... back to topic
TeeJay said:
Yes, but such things aren't done to "the USA, God Bless America", see? It is only Africans being massacred. Just like in Iraq only Towel Heads are being massacred.
Why on earth (not even speaking of how) should Congo claim to defend its "freedom", hence "justify" a "pre-emptive strike against an Imminent Danger" and attack at random some sovereign nations to make it clear that "You are with us or against us" needs to be taken deadly - in the most abolute sense - serious?
You need to make the difference.
For the same reason Iraqis defending their nation against Holy US invaders (or crusaders, like Bush phrased it) are "terrorists" by definition, since they "attack the Army of the Glorious Leader inspired by God to erradicate Evil". ("Onwards Christian Soldiers" or how does that song go again?)
You have a good working PR machinery or you have not. That is the whole difference. The USA sells its agression to the lazy consumers in perfectly orchestrated Captalism Adverting Style.
salaam.
TeeJay said:
Oh, fucking bollocks man. Their normal professional standards? What the absolute fuck are you on about? The vast majority of them don't even talk about news, they create it with their obsession over celebrities and the like.
And you just tell me how you know they have decided that this topic 'simply don't stand up to scrutiny'. How do you know? Are you one of them?
You did not read what i said properly. I am openly wondering why they do not ask questions, why the event is not written about. You're telling me they decided through their own application that there's nothing to investigate. Fuck man, go on, tell us how you arrive at this.
And bollocks, it has not attracted a vast amount of media coverage. Show me i'm wrong.
Ninjaboy said:
And another thing teejay, you tell me why obl releases videos of appalling quality, perfectly timed each time to help out bush, when he is a rich bastard, and operating in an era of highly advanced communications.
Ninja's point is totally valid. Go on, why's he using yesteryear's technology, and even then making it so bad that no-one can even verify it's his voice?
Any ideas?
You were the one arguing that the media had ignored 9-11.fela fan said:
I was pointing out that they hadn't ignored it at all, and was pointing to an example of something they really have ignored.
I never said that all the wars in Congo were still continuing, although there is in fact still an ongoing conflict in North Eastern DRC (see "Ituri conflict" below). I stated that they are a very recent example of millions of human deaths being ignored by the media, the general public and seemingly even by most self-described 'activists' and campaigners.
Just to clarify what we are talking about here are some relevant quotes from Wikipedia:
The First Congo War was a conflict from late 1996 to 1997 in which Zairean President Mobutu Sésé Seko was overthrown by rebel forces backed by foreign powers such as Uganda and Rwanda.link
The Second Congo War was a conflict that took place largely in the territory of Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire). The war began in 1998 and officially ended in 2003 when a Transitional Government took power. The widest interstate war in modern African history, it directly involved nine African nations, as well as about twenty armed groups, and earned the epithet of "Africa's World War". An estimated 3.8 million people died, mostly from starvation and disease brought about by the deadliest conflict since World War II. Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighboring countries.
Despite a formal end to the war in July 2003 and an agreement by the former belligerents to create a government of national unity, the state remains weak and much of the eastern region continues to suffer from violent conflict. In 2004, an estimated one thousand people died every day from violence and disruptions to basic social services and food supply. Sporadic outbreaks of fighting continue to lead to large scale forced migration. link
The Ituri conflict [1999 -> ongoing] is a conflict between the agriculturalist Lendu and pastoralist Hema ethnic groups in the Ituri region of northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). However, it has been vastly complicated by the presence of various armed groups who participated in the Second Congo War, the large amount of small arms in the region, a scramble for the area's abundant natural resources, and the ethnic tensions of the surrounding region. More than 50,000 people have been killed since the conflict began in mid-1999 and hundreds of thousands forced from their homes. link
"Get with the times"
You are really missing the point: it is about studying *literature* (the 'english' bit means that it is literature written in that language), in the same way as someone studying english history is studying *history*. What do you mean by "one-sided"? Are you saying that someone can't comment on (eg) Shakespare unless they can speak several languages? What has this got to do with the literature being studied?Aldebaran said:
I was beong sarcastic. The several thousand people killed in New York on 9-11 have had more media coverage than any equivalent number of people killed anywhere else. You are talking utter shite. It has had a vast amount of media coverage whereas other bigger losses of life have not. I could list you dozens of examples from all around the world, but I have given you a very large one - the DRC.fela fan said:
A similar thing could be said about New Orleans: look at how the media were initially saying that it was almost as great a disater as the tsunami, but when it comes to comparing the numbers actually killed ... anyone can see the vast difference.
Some death tolls for 2004 - 2006:
2005 AIDS: 3,100,000
2005 TB: 2,000,000
2005 Malaria: 1,300,000
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: 283,100+
2005 Pakistan earthquake: 87,000+
2004 Hurricane Jeanne / Haiti: 3,037
2006 mudslide / Phillipines: 1,800
2005 Hurricane Stan / Mexico c.am): 1,620
2004 Hurricane Katrina / USA: 1,418
2006 Red Sea Ferry: 1,018
2005 floods / Bombay: 1,000
Teejay, why don't you start another thread to argue all this bollocks. It's got nowt to do with this thread.
You're telling me that 911 has had vast amounts of media coverage. Well, in the immediate aftermath, i don't imagine you are wrong.
But what about in the last year or two, and in the context of investigative journalism? Nothing? I asked you to show me i'm wrong, coz i don't live there. But it's my impression that there is fuck all in the media about 911 and in effect everyone has written it off, by not actually writing anything about it.
One example: it is news that obl has released his latest video, and it is reported that the quality is not so good? Does anyone question the authenticity of it? If they do, is it restricted to the indie, the lowest selling paper in britain? Do the tv news channels or debating programmes cover this angle of the story?
Are you telling me that the media debate the topic of 911? I doubt they do in any way at all. But tell me i'm wrong...
You're telling me that 911 has had vast amounts of media coverage. Well, in the immediate aftermath, i don't imagine you are wrong.
But what about in the last year or two, and in the context of investigative journalism? Nothing? I asked you to show me i'm wrong, coz i don't live there. But it's my impression that there is fuck all in the media about 911 and in effect everyone has written it off, by not actually writing anything about it.
One example: it is news that obl has released his latest video, and it is reported that the quality is not so good? Does anyone question the authenticity of it? If they do, is it restricted to the indie, the lowest selling paper in britain? Do the tv news channels or debating programmes cover this angle of the story?
Are you telling me that the media debate the topic of 911? I doubt they do in any way at all. But tell me i'm wrong...
TeeJay said:
Exactly that.
Mother tongue = English already. Hence the English literature is already part of the mother tongue's literary culture and even of the whole culture and history background and education of the student.
If you mean with "history" the study of "English history only" I would say that is in the same way one-sided and far too narrow for an academic education.
Are you saying that someone can't comment on (eg) Shakespare unless they can speak several languages? What has this got to do with the literature being studied?
No, I say that I can't see how to fill 5 to 6 years of an academic education - or even only 3 - with the study of only the literature of one language, let alone when it is your mother tongue's literature at that.
But then I think for anyone coming from multiple-language background it is difficult to imagine that
salaam.
Similar threads
