The United States Propaganda system

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

but they arent defending themselves. they are only there to destabilizing the country by killing innocent people, thus undermining American credibility in the country.

really.

Insurgents are not from Iraq and are fighting, not to kick the foreign invaders out, but to "destabilize" the region?

To what end?

why do they care so much about American credibility?

Do you seriously believe they are blowing themselves up to make the US look bad?

yes, absolutely. in doing that, they get support from people like you when innocent people die. must be the US's fault! Death to America! Death to America! see its working.

i had the same attitude toward American imperialism before bush was even elected. before 9/11 to be sure.

Radical Islamists don't have my sympathy, and haven't changed my mind about anything.


this isn't a US bashing thread anyway, just trying to point out that maybe the most sophisticated propaganda system is right here in the US.

jlew24asu

LOL this isnt an US bashing thread? I got you all wrong Commy :roll:

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

LOL this isnt an US bashing thread? I got you all wrong Commy :roll:

i had to keep you on you toes.


ok maybe it is.

but not for the sake of bashing.

i thought it was relevant info that some people may not have known about.

ajedigecko

there is propaganda on both sides...........i for one, like the fact that we have media that is both far right and far left.

Commy

ajedigecko wrote:

there is propaganda on both sides...........i for one, like the fact that we have media that is both far right and far left.

the original post explains that the bias has nothing to do with partisanship.

media serves whatever power happen to be in the whitehouse.

During Bush it was all for giving his administration a platform, which led us into Iraq. (too late the media broke ranks)

During Obama....he can do whatever he wants. even Fox is behind the war in Afghanstan, and they're supposed to be anti-Obama.

There is no dissent in the ranks anymore.


the dem/republican "debate" is useless. Its a distraction keeping everyone focused on nonsense, so that the real issues never have to be dealt with.

so they can pretend to discuss "issues".

the issues are never discussed, the ones that literally mean life or death for lots of people.

Afghanis could care less if liberals are killing them or republicans.

jlew24asu

ajedigecko wrote:

there is propaganda on both sides...........i for one, like the fact that we have media that is both far right and far left.

not only is there far right, far left..but everything in between... we have freedom of the press. people are allowed to spin things anyway they so choose.

commy may like to say the US is the root of all evil but he would be tortured and killed and his mother raped in front of him had he spoke out against Saddam if he were an Iraqi.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

During Obama....he can do whatever he wants. even Fox is behind the war in Afghanstan, and they're supposed to be anti-Obama.

thats because most Americans do not want to give the Taliban and El Queda a home base to attack us from....as much as you would like that.

Commy

:evil:

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

What does the amount of people that like Madonna have to do with whether she qualifies as being an artist or not?
An artist in the field of music is someone who writes their own music and/or lyrics. Madonna isn't a songwriter, she's just a performer. The fact that millions of idiots don't realise this doesn't change the fact.

you really want to debate whether or not Madonna is an artist? you aren't talking in facts. some can easily argue that a performer is an artist. there is no definition of an artist... and with a simple google search this site says she wrote or co-wrote many of her songs.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.stuar ... discs.html

but I'm not really going to debate this.

Fine. You think Madonna is an artist. I disagree. In my opinion an artist is a creative person - someone who creates. Madonna is just a publicity whore.

Now then, why do you think that the U.S and Israel are brokers for peace in the Middle East?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

What does the amount of people that like Madonna have to do with whether she qualifies as being an artist or not?
An artist in the field of music is someone who writes their own music and/or lyrics. Madonna isn't a songwriter, she's just a performer. The fact that millions of idiots don't realise this doesn't change the fact.

you really want to debate whether or not Madonna is an artist? you aren't talking in facts. some can easily argue that a performer is an artist. there is no definition of an artist... and with a simple google search this site says she wrote or co-wrote many of her songs.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.stuar ... discs.html

but I'm not really going to debate this.

Fine. You think Madonna is an artist. I disagree. In my opinion an artist is a creative person - someone who creates. Madonna is just a publicity whore.

I dont care much for Madonna, but I'm not about my creative my own definition of what an artist is and pawn it off as fact. but she certainly does create. so by your definition is a very successful artist.

Byrnzie wrote:

Now then, why do you think that the U.S and Israel are brokers for peace in the Middle East?

they arent. both countries should be wiped off the map. fingers crossed.

John Briggs 2008

Commy wrote:

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

To the OP, your user name says all I need to know. Every government and country is corrupt and fucked up. Tell us we suck because we are the USA. Not like Americans don't hear that shit all the time. This country was founded on ideology. You should visit abovetopsecret.com. You would fit right in.

I do visit abovetopsecret.com sometimes.

This is not from them however.

This is mainly based on the words of a professor from MIT, who was once the most cited living man on the planet. Good luck debunking this one. Many have tried. Of the hundreds of thousands of pages that Chomsky has written over the decades, nothing substantial has EVER been shown to be factually inconsistent. Believe me, they want nothing more than to shoot him down.

He was called "arguably the most important intellectual alive" by the NY Times-the most widely read newspaper at the time, and what is used as the official record.

Today he is simply ignored by mainstream.

Like Ghandi said,
First the ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win

chomsky's on about his 100 go at that.


So feel free to have a go at him. could be interesting.

What is the point in debunking what is not fact but perception.

Austicman

So its OK to killed hundreds of thousands because Saddam was a bad man. So why not invade Somalia or Zimbabwe. The situations there are by far worse than it ever was in Iraq.

My point about about the insurgents targeting the local police and military seems to be lost on you jlew. Like much of the arguments in this thread or any other thread about the middle east conflicts. Your opinion seems set in stone and like alot of conservitives you pick a sentence or a phrase and take it out of context instead of giving a rebuttle based on the complete statement put before you.

Commy

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

What is the point in debunking what is not fact but perception.

It can be proven. Pick an event, and compare it. Many studies have been done, by plenty of reputable institutions.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a good example.

Palestinian casualties are under reported, and the reverse is true for Israeli's.

Which distorts reality if you're only getting your info from mainstream, which a lot of people do. Which in turn can affect policy, more support for Israel, right? Never mind accuracy in reporting, they are slanting perception. Whoever is responsible. Andthe fact that it is primarily slanted in a pro-US light, is evidence of a system.

Its not an opinion.

If country A kills 5000 people.
And country B kills 100,

But the media only reports on country B, everyone will think B is the bad guy. But reality suggests otherwise.

And if country A happens to be a US ally, and country B an official enemy, its interesting. When there are numerous accounts like this, in different parts of the world, it suggests a motive. Evidence of propaganda carried out by the state.

Also, as citizens of a country, it does no good for the media to report on atrocities committed by enemies. What can we do but bang the drums of war when we hear about Saddam's atrocities? And if we were to hear about the much worse atrocities in Turkey, as extensively, there just may be a large movement in the United States to put pressure on the political leadership in this country to put an end to them, which could have a very real impact over there. I"m not saying don't report on things done by official enemies, but doing so extensively, as they have done with Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan and a dozen others before, inevitably leads to 1 thing.

There are a number of very serious events in history, genocides, for example, that could have been stopped had there been responsible journalism. When Indonesia invaded East Timor (10 days after Kissinger left), the media was absolutley silent about it. Not only was the time spent reporting on an equally atrocious genocide in Cambodia (carried out by an official enemy) but the genocide in East Timor ended with a word from Washington. As soon as people found out about it stopped.

More evidence of propaganda, which in this case cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

The evidence is all around.

HermanBloom

Noam Chomsky is a complete asshold treasonist

Drowned Out

nathanastin wrote:

Noam Chomsky is a complete asshold treasonist

nice. holding asses is ok. is treasonist the new terrorist?
care to elaborate?

Byrnzie

nathanastin wrote:

Noam Chomsky is a complete asshold treasonist

Right, because Democracy and liberty means being subservient to power and not fighting for the rights of your fellow man, right?