Considering its on every night and every night we see pictures of battles and all war type things, but should we really see this?

 

I must admit that I am fixed to my screen watching it but is this what we want our childeren to see. We know a lot of details of where our troups are and how they are going. If the Iraqi inteligence doesnt know where the forces are, just tune to BBC online and they will know exaclty where they are.

 

Also I think that the news people are looking into Iraqi deaths too much. Dont forget that these reporters are taken to places to visit, and most of them will be staged, such as hospitals with "civilian" casuties and yet after the reports are alone say they could see uniforms hidden under sheets and pillows.

 

In the first 2 nights we all saw pictures of a baby "bady hurt because of bombing" when their whole house collapsed when a bomb went off, and yet mum, dad and about 4 other family members could be seen by the bed without a scratch. Which means they where not in the house and baby was alone, or it was all bull and the the baby was probably just hurt some other unrelated way.

 

We are just giving people who are not for the reasons of this war more ammo to argue with. We all know that people die during wars. We know inoccent people die its the most horrific point of wars, but do we need to hear about every little detail where Iriqis die?

 

I think I would be happier with news casts with out having to see battles going on and seeing buildings being blown up by missles.

 

Take for example these school kids "protesting" against the war. They are really too young to understand what this war is about. Do you think they watched the news for the 9 months before leading up to this? Do they remember the 1991 conflict and what that was about? They just see whats on TV and are too young to understand or are unwilling to understand.

 

So what you think?

Is the war shown on TV in too much detail?

 

In the Arab world they are showing people blown in pieces, thank god we dont see that.

 

Stuart

My opinions (;)

 

First dont assume children are stupid and/or on the blag for a day off. They are not.

 

Secondly Al-Jazeera are the only ones actually showing what is *really* going on, all we are seeing is sanitised agit/prop

 

I personally have little time for anyone who complains about what is shown on the TV. Providing that the material is legal it has absolutely NO reason to be moral.

You cannot possibly claim that something with an on/off switch can be pervasive, it is not. Its a window to the world, close the window if you dont like what you see.

(and I know you weren't complaining Stu so I aint aiming anything your way mate)

 

Embedded correspondents are a joke, as are the Bagdhad reporters. The military control one, the Iraqi's control the other.

 

I say its a shame that Al-Jazeera are pulling out of Iraq, its also a surprise.

 

Also this is not a war. A war is when two people turn up to fight.

 

Children? I would (and do) allow mine to watch Sky/CNN/BBC but I would not want them to see Al-Jazeera.

 

But Al-Jazeera and AbuDarbi-TV are something EVERYONE of a voting age should watch :(

 

Everyone here kinda knows my opinions, I have been called every name under the sun for those opinions but I stand by them.

 

I would only add that I wish every person in Iraq, good bad and ugly, a quick peace and safe passage. Soldiers inculded.

 

Peace.

 

Glen

Originally posted by senna

My opinions (;)

 

First dont assume children are stupid and/or on the blag for a day off. They are not.

 

Secondly Al-Jazeera are the only ones actually showing what is *really* going on, all we are seeing is sanitised agit/prop

 

Glen

 

What a load of hypocritical Bollocks.

Are you so narrow minded that you think Al-Jazeera tv post factual Journalism, dont kid your self lmao.

 

Its as much propaganda on there side as it is on the Western side, just wierd how people take for granted what Arab TV says as being the unspoken truth lmao,

, i suppose the next thing you say is you believe the Information minister of IRAQ who was recorded by AL- Jazeera television saying the Coalition forces are being pinned back at every point lol, "they are no where near Bahgdad " he is quoted as saying - at the same time they are taking over the cities airport lol.

 

Personally there is far to much coverage for my liking and far to much AL-Jazeera propoganda and Western Propoganda for anyones liking.

Sorry Glen but you do run the risk of being accused of being a hypocrite (not by moi obviously!) To assume that the Western journalists are all biased towards the West and the Arab journalists are somehow unbiased you don't do your point of view any favours.

I said 'Al Jazeera are the only ones actually showing what is going on'

 

Perhaps I should explain myself. 'Showing' what is going on.

 

In other words; 'what you see'

Not 'what you hear'

 

I can make my mind up from pictures of dead people, thanks all the same, though its nice to know you think my hypocritical for doing so.

 

If I see pictures on Al-Jazeera showing a residential area blown to pieces then I dont really care if CNN say it was being used for weapons cacheing. I see a residential area blown to pieces, that's all.

Originally posted by Mike Duffy

Sorry Glen but you do run the risk of being accused of being a hypocrite (not by moi obviously!) To assume that the Western journalists are all biased towards the West and the Arab journalists are somehow unbiased you don't do your point of view any favours.

 

Thats ok, I accept that fully.

 

I dont however assume this, I only refer to the embedded correspondents or the Bagdhad reporters who are in check.

The Washington Post reporter who reported the truth about what went on at the checkpoint when the civilians were killed I have total respect for.

I am not saying Al-Jazeera is not fuelling prop either, it is.

My point was that Al-Jazeera and Abu Darbi TV will show the *real sh|t* that is being reined down on Iraq where the Western carriers will not.

All you have to do to settle this is:

 

Get two TV sets and tune one to CNN and the other to Al-Jazeera.

 

Turn down the volume to zero.

 

Watch.

 

Make up your own minds based on the suffering you see.

 

Simple. ;)

I absolutely agree with you Stuart - too much reporting.

The other day I said to my family that there should be limited coverage from the media. The war is on and the troops have to do their (horrific) job. War is ghastly and an army has to have the moral courage to do what they have to do without hinderance from the media and public opinion.

 

Lets all just remember if we sat back like the U.N. and Robin Cook wanted - well within 10 years would we be here on the forum talking???

 

I believe Iraq had to be dealt with.

Israel knocked out its nuclear reactor years ago in one swift sharp blow.

The time has come when Saddam and his crazy henchmen have to go - and too much reporting impedes the war process.

 

I do not watch the news as much now - it just gets too much. I listen on and off during the day to the BBC World Service which I find informative.

 

And by the way, that camera focused on some location in Baghdad used by all the stations, reminds me of Big Brother!!!

 

Geoff.

Originally posted by senna

All you have to do to settle this is:

 

Get two TV sets and tune one to CNN and the other to Al-Jazeera.

 

Turn down the volume to zero.

 

Watch.

 

Make up your own minds based on the suffering you see.

 

Simple. ;)

CNN isn't the BBC. To be honest, I'd compare CNN and Al-Jazeera as being two sides of the same agenda-ridden coin. Don't mistake this for some misguided belief that everything I hear on the BBC is the impartial truth. Also, don't mistake anything I've said here as condoning or condemning the war or the news coverage. I keep my views on such issues to my friends and people I can debate with, not public Internet forums.

Originally posted by Mike Duffy

CNN isn't the BBC. To be honest, I'd compare CNN and Al-Jazeera as being two sides of the same agenda-ridden coin. Don't mistake this for some misguided belief that everything I hear on the BBC is the impartial truth. Also, don't mistake anything I've said here as condoning or condemning the war or the news coverage. I keep my views on such issues to my friends and people I can debate with, not public Internet forums.

 

Fair comment.

 

Best way, there is no way one can convey true feeling, debate and discourse with a keyboard.. that is why the sh*t hits the fan here so much :)

 

Me, i dont care a toss, Ill argue with anyone just for the sake of it ;)

 

Take care,

 

Glen

Originally posted by senna

All you have to do to settle this is:

 

Get two TV sets and tune one to CNN and the other to Al-Jazeera.

 

Turn down the volume to zero.

 

Watch.

 

Make up your own minds based on the suffering you see.

 

Simple. ;)

 

I will watch the coverage on Al-Jazeera of Iraqi soilders shooting and mortering Iraqi civilians. I will watch on Al-Jazeera coverage of Iraqi soilders grabbing children to hide behind. I will Al-Jazeera information of US and British soilders being exicuted. I will watch past footage on Al-Jazeera about Sadam using Chemical Weapons on his own people after the first Gulf War.

No TV station can show everything. Al-Jazeera is an Arab station and shows what the Arabs want to see and that is people suffering in market places, regardless of that it was an Iraqi missile that went wrong.

 

Originally posted by senna

First dont assume children are stupid and/or on the blag for a day off. They are not.

 

Will ask these teenagers who have pieced eyes and tongues because its fasionable, and most probably vegitarian because its fasionable (How many keep it up after year, very few), who have or want tatoos, because its fasionable, what they feel about the war and you hear the same old story, usually the ones they heard from their freinds. They havent made their own minds up. Dont presume that all kids are as open minded as your probably are how ever old they are. :confused: But you learn that a vast majority of school children just do things for the sake of doing it. Every day I hear stories from my mum, sister and girlfriend Cath about kids and you can tell what type of person they are. The same ones doing the fasionable thing even though they get into trouble but still do it because they want to look "cool". and these where the ones that left. However I do believe there are people that age who I think know enough to make thier own minds up they may go and protest or they may not. I doubt they will jump infront of the TV camera shouting and screaming like the children they are.

 

 

Originally posted by Mike Duffy

CNN isn't the BBC.

Very true. I heard from a US jouralist about that and he said that the US press is very naive.

 

 

Originally posted by senna

Providing that the material is legal it has absolutely NO reason to be moral.

OK lets make kids programs more realistic. Lets have people on Biker Grove actually having sex, its not illegal providing they are 16 and thus not imorral and loads of under 16 year olds do it anyway, why not show kids. Would you let your kids watch?

Lets put microphones in the stands where people swear every other word, so instead of hearing commentry you will hear things like, "Brakes that ****ing fouling bastards twating legs off!". Would you allow your children listen to that? I wouldnt. But its not illegal and not immoral and it happens to every football ground in this country.

 

 

Again to you Glen. Im not having a go at you. This is a world where parents have less time to look over thier children (Not having a go at any one here. No one has time to watch their children 24/7). If the above examples where allowed you would be frightened to for your child to be watching and with an age where most have a TV in thier room, there is very little we can do.

That is why there are rule that dont allow things like sex to be shown on childrens programming, or try the best to filter out swearing at football matches. However, these rules at the moment doesnt seem to be appying to the news.

 

I am not saying its effecting me, I am more bothered about younger children. I can remember loads of times I asked something when I was younger and was told, "I will tell you when your are older" and it was forgotten until I was told or worked it out.

However when you see a dead body on the news and your asked "Why is he dead?" what can you say? How do you explain to a child the act of war and reason for war?

 

Again. Im not having ago at people this is how I see it.

Show it later. They dont have to show buildings blowing up while I am trying to have my tea, or when kids are home from school. Do it later after the watershed where things like that are shown if its a TV program and not the news.

 

 

Stuart

Who said "Truth is the first casualty of war"?

 

I do not believe anything the press/media says - its often based in truth but its always biased. The pictures shown are also edited give a slant on what is actually happening.

 

For example I have seen exatly the same pictures of a ruined house described as "A military hide out" containing "terrorist" hit by an "Iraqi 'own goal' missile" and "A residential house" containing "women and children" hit by a "coalition bomb".

 

The fact is that people are getting killed out there and the sooner it is over the better.

Originally posted by senna

I said 'Al Jazeera are the only ones actually showing what is going on'

 

Perhaps I should explain myself. 'Showing' what is going on.

 

In other words; 'what you see'

Not 'what you hear'

 

I can make my mind up from pictures of dead people, thanks all the same, though its nice to know you think my hypocritical for doing so.

 

If I see pictures on Al-Jazeera showing a residential area blown to pieces then I dont really care if CNN say it was being used for weapons cacheing. I see a residential area blown to pieces, that's all.

 

I am constantly amazed that people are more willing to believe other governments over their own, or even their own independent journalists (if there is such a thing). At best 'Al-Jazeera' are showing factual pictures, but only one side of the story, it is the role of any journalist to report ALL information without prejudice.

 

I know this is an idealistic view, but this is how it is meant to work. Almost every news agency / reporter have their own agenda.

 

I believe the western journalist show a much more unbiased view based on the information they have.

 

Just because the Iraq government said that the US deliberately attacked a market place, don't make it so, any more than the USA saying it didn't.

 

Every time, look at the evidence, make your own mind up, do we have all the evidence?

 

My own opinion is, if the allies were fighting an unlimited war I.e. targeting all military targets despite their location, there would be far, far move civilian casualties. If they were targeting civilians, well, there would be 100,000's dead by now.

 

Yes War is a horrible and regrettable business, do show it on the TV, but show both sides, impartially and fairly.

 

Mike

find a line between the news from both sides and you will have a better idea of what is going on!

 

ex serviceman(raf)

 

what i would give to be back over there now! i loved it.

The IRONY of Senna and his posting is just that,

If your so ANTI American why do you continue to use Western products - ie The internet - and things like this?

(not being funny,but seriously if your so Anti everything they do and everything this country does? why do you continue to live of a system like this>?)

There are other options you know.

No one can ever respect someone who talks about doing things and never acts on them.

 

 

Bottom line is also not to be to Suspicious of absolutley everything you read or hear, because Paranoia isint a clear image of whats going on iether. it leads you to make assumptions and we all know Assumption=the mother of all **** ups lol.

Being a satellite anorak with a 1m motorised (yah boo sucks mine's bigger than yours chiz chiz) there have been some strange viewings.

 

For example, a couple of days ago, I was watching ITV News which was running the live TV feed from Abu Dhabi TV showing Baghdad. And a few remote clicks later, there was Kuwait TV which was also running a live feed of TV from Baghdad - supplied by Sky News. Sometimes you think there is just one TV crew being retransmitted and recaptioned ad nauseam (paranoia!).

 

Most of Al-Jazeera were trained by BBC and were previously involved with a BBC / Arabic joint venture which got shut down. So their journalistic credentials are pretty good. Mostly.

 

But it is clear that all channels are reporting from their point of view - as you'd expect. So they are all biased either deliberately or just by their culture.

 

Iraq TV is completely off-the-wall and one of the exceptions that proves the rule.

 

The thing that is "better" than before is that as technology develops, there is more and more info for you to choose and make up your own minds on. The downside of that is that it is easier for propagandists to spread their messages also.

 

Lastly - and for true hypocrisy - the same organisation which is transmitting Iraq TV over Europe also sells shedloads of capacity to the US military to help them communicate from US to the Gulf.

 

Cheers - Gio

Originally posted by Gio

Being a satellite anorak with a 1m motorised (yah boo sucks mine's bigger than yours chiz chiz) there have been some strange viewings.

 

For example, a couple of days ago, I was watching ITV News which was running the live TV feed from Abu Dhabi TV showing Baghdad. And a few remote clicks later, there was Kuwait TV which was also running a live feed of TV from Baghdad - supplied by Sky News. Sometimes you think there is just one TV crew being retransmitted and recaptioned ad nauseam (paranoia!).

 

Most of Al-Jazeera were trained by BBC and were previously involved with a BBC / Arabic joint venture which got shut down. So their journalistic credentials are pretty good. Mostly.

 

But it is clear that all channels are reporting from their point of view - as you'd expect. So they are all biased either deliberately or just by their culture.

 

Iraq TV is completely off-the-wall and one of the exceptions that proves the rule.

 

The thing that is "better" than before is that as technology develops, there is more and more info for you to choose and make up your own minds on. The downside of that is that it is easier for propagandists to spread their messages also.

 

Lastly - and for true hypocrisy - the same organisation which is transmitting Iraq TV over Europe also sells shedloads of capacity to the US military to help them communicate from US to the Gulf.

 

Cheers - Gio

A man with common sense. Hear hear.

Warren,

 

Hows about actually READING what I actually say, instead of just assuming I am saying what you think I am saying.

 

I know you have mediated for members of the Mongrels, Scorpions, Laughing Boys, Young Americans, Nice Time Kids etc on the Cape Flats, so I respect you fully for doing 'it' whilst I only talk about 'it'

 

Whatever 'it' is.

 

FFS. The only thing I am 'Anti' is goolie-out stupidity.

Originally posted by 300z

The IRONY of Senna and his posting is just that,

If your so ANTI American why do you continue to use Western products - ie The internet - and things like this?

(not being funny,but seriously if your so Anti everything they do and everything this country does? why do you continue to live of a system like this>?)

There are other options you know.

No one can ever respect someone who talks about doing things and never acts on them

 

Around Henry the 8th time wasn't there a statement along the lines

 

"I don't support what was said but support the right to say it"

 

and isn't that what this countries freedom of speach is all about for if we can't say what we want we will be the same as the people in the country we are trying to liberate

Originally posted by steve burns

Around Henry the 8th time wasn't there a statement along the lines

 

"I don't support what was said but support the right to say it"

 

and isn't that what this countries freedom of speach is all about for if we can't say what we want we will be the same as the people in the country we are trying to liberate

I agree, my point being people who live withing a safe society often dont appreciate what they have (ie) freedom, and i just think A: if you say something, its pointless not acting on it, becauseit means nothing then.

B: if you dont appreciate what you have as a nation ect based on what others have done to ensure you have that right to speach, well then no one can respect you as a person.

 

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by 300z

I agree, my point being people who live withing a safe society often dont appreciate what they have (ie) freedom, and i just think A: if you say something, its pointless not acting on it, becauseit means nothing then.

B: if you dont appreciate what you have as a nation ect based on what others have done to ensure you have that right to speach, well then no one can respect you as a person.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Well thats f***ing rich coming from someone who requested help from alt.2600 to hack Torque Developments Inc., sh|t man I dont notice you going down tdi-plc and kicking off at them, oh no its blag help from twentysix hundred like they are gonna do your dirty work for you....

You have the friggin audacity to accuse me of hypocracy, just because I abhor the war.

Well Warren, as you say, no respect can be due to someone who says something and then doesn't act on it.

 

Jeez.

Originally posted by senna

Well thats f***ing rich coming from someone who requested help from alt.2600 to hack Torque Developments Inc., sh|t man I dont notice you going down tdi-plc and kicking off at them, oh no its blag help from twentysix hundred like they are gonna do your dirty work for you....

You have the friggin audacity to accuse me of hypocracy, just because I abhor the war.

Well Warren, as you say, no respect can be due to someone who says something and then doesn't act on it.

 

Jeez.

LMAO yeah good one lol, your about as accurate in your journalism as the AL-JAZEER lol

so you didn't solicit help from alt.2600/or simillar to bust TDI then?

 

f|_|cking hypocrite.

nah was Xoticar innit?

Originally posted by 300z

LMAO yeah good one lol, your about as accurate in your journalism as the AL-JAZEER lol

 

OK tit turd, did you or did you not try to elicit alt.2600/hackers to bring down either TDI/Xoticar?

 

If so why are you not down there now kicking off?

 

Bloody hypocrite.

Originally posted by senna

OK tit turd, did you or did you not try to elicit alt.2600/hackers to bring down either TDI/Xoticar?

 

If so why are you not down there now kicking off?

 

Bloody hypocrite.

 

OK tit turd, did you or did you not call Mac a fat has been?

 

If so why are you not at Billing telling him to his face?

 

Bloody hippycrite

 

BWAHAHAHHAHAHA :D