General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHey, MSNBC. Yeah, I'm talking to you. Thanks for the snuff videos you just showed.
We have seen some of the films before of people being gassed and dying in Syria. We are aware of the horror, but showing these videos to gin up the war drumming being done is really not cool. It doesn't help considering that the source of those videos is still questionable, which even your host mentioned. It's not that they aren't real, but we still don't know whose at fault. There is just not firm intelligence yet to point an accusing finger. So please be journalists and stick to the known facts.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I have to be really in a dry desert of news information to put CNN on and if it's just down to Fox News, I turn the TV off.
Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)Just doesn't get any better, does it?
Reminds one of the time in English history when administrators gave the public the opportunity to enter the mental asylum for public viewing of the patients for entertainment. Not a lot of difference, from what I tell, beyond the great advancements we've made in technology!
tavalon
(27,985 posts)but when I choose to watch any streaming channels, I go to Al Jazeera first and BBC second. I only watch my favorites on MSNBC.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)I've been busy trying not to drown in my own life, so it's possible. Damn.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)f**k-all is ever going to happen on a Saturday unless it's a natural disaster or someone is exceedingly media-unsavvy.
I find it's a good day to watch America's Test Kitchen on PBS. Maybe baseball or college football, if you're into sports...I'm really not.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)No cooking shows for me. I'll just want to eat more than I should. Later on in the evening, when I'm newsed out, I'll probably pop in a DVD of a movie.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's been a continuous drumbeater for foreign intervention in Syria going back to March, '11.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)By and large they have good programming. One must take with a grain of salt any puff pieces about Qatar, but when reporting on stories that they don't have a dog in the fight, they have excellent coverage and they cover many things we never do, like stories out of Africa or South America or parts of Asia we don't do business with. Even though I figure that a lot of their ME coverage is biased, when there is breaking news, they are often the first and sometimes even the only raw coverage before all the "journalists" from the main networks arrive.
mick063
(2,424 posts)They have sworn fealty regardless of the stakes.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)they hype up any war.
war toys sold by GE signs their pay checks.
Bringing the Barack Obama Group into this, the way you did, is shitty.
mick063
(2,424 posts)That is the basic "gist" of it.
It appears that it is more important for the President to appear politically strong than understanding the true nature of this.
He played the sequester game to gain the political upper hand with the GOP, then made it all vanish by a huge lobbying effort to spend money on more military adventurism against the will of most Americans.
The President "bought in" to the GOP concept that our deficit was the biggest problem by putting "entitlements" on the negotiating table. Now, we have surprisingly discovered that we can capably conduct expensive military exercises as such adventurism has "already been paid for."
Nobody wants war. It is not important that the President look politically strong. It is the ODS ranting here that just wants the President to be wrong on everything. If he wanted to leave Syria alone, the same posters would be ranting on about how he's not helping people who are victims of chemical weapons.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Don't tell us we "just want the President to be wrong." I have always been happy to support the President when he made good decisions. This choice to start a new war is not a good decision. Do you really think nine out of ten posters on DU are just mindlessly anti-Obama? That is pure bull, and you know it.
As to your point that "nobody wants war": If nobody wants war, then who was that Black guy who spent his entire time in Russia twisting the arms of every World leader at the G-20 to try and get a coalition to go to war against Syria? Who is that tall, white-haired fellow who's been doing the same on Capitol Hill? Yes, there are people who want war. The American people don't want war by a large majority, but their top leaders clearly do.
treestar
(82,383 posts)find the President to be always wrong and have mindless conspiracy type beliefs regarding "the banksters" and the like Evil Beings Controlling Everything.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Pure rubbish, that lot, pure rubbish! What! What!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)of course I can't speak for all of the Group, but I have heard this blanket accusational bullshit here before that we are bloodthirsty warmongers.
Some want the Barack Obama Group to look as evil as they think the President himself is. That is what is going on here.
FSogol
(45,553 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)If the President had not asked for a Congressional vote and had acted unilaterally to strike Syria, you would have collectively "dove in" head first and backed his decision every step of the way.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.
The "wait for more information" meme is recycled spin from the faction that is looking for an excuse, any excuse, to vote yes on Syria strikes.
To answer your reply ahead of time:
It doesn't matter what exclusive intel the President has.
It doesn't matter that Assad conclusively used chemical weapons.
What matters is that we are broke from bailing out those that live in tax havens and it is time for the world to collectively claim a portion of global civic responsibility. If it is vital to send a global message, let Europe do it this time. On their own. Without US blood and treasure. That would send the strongest possible message.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)case closed.
Progressive dog
(6,921 posts)or if we got Europe to pay for it?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)a bigoted, closed minded and nasty group that discriminates, hates facts and is against any robust discussion of issues/policies. It should be banned, rather than be allowed to remain as a clique that bans anyone who states facts they don't like to hear, to quote my other post.
Of course they want to hear the president out. That's ALL they want to hear, whatever the president says. And you know who else acts/acted like that. That's right. You know.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)And were advocated peace instead.
There are infiltrators that you should check out, I swear some that post in that group were actively seeking military intervention and interference in the Syrian civil conflict, you should boot them out for misrepresenting your views.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)I guess I've been out of the loop for a while, because somehow I missed this acronym.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)But you can also apply the traditional definition and the urban definition just as easiliy.
2bog
verb
bogged bog·ging
Definition of BOG
transitive verb
: to cause to sink into or as if into a bog : impede, mire usually used with down
intransitive verb
: to become impeded or stuck usually used with down
See bog defined for English-language learners »
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bog
Random Word
2. Bog
The process of refusing to believe any logical thought/reasoning and create a theory based on no hard facts. The theory is usualy based on a forum post or a paragraph someone once read which was meaningless and untrue. Even if hard facts are presented to discourage the bog theory or totally falsify it, the individual refuses to accpet the truth.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bog
Raksha
(7,167 posts)because I've never been bogged down in the BOG. In fact I didn't even know it was there. But it's the Urban Dictionary definition you posted that seems most applicable to O-bots:
2. Bog
The process of refusing to believe any logical thought/reasoning and create a theory based on no hard facts. The theory is usually based on a forum post or a paragraph someone once read which was meaningless and untrue. Even if hard facts are presented to discourage the bog theory or totally falsify it, the individual refuses to accept the truth.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)bog is slang for toilet .... Just saying.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)well, you know.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)That's why I said it .... sorry all! Just not that keen on another war ....
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That is a bigoted, closed minded and nasty group that discriminates, hates facts and is against any robust discussion of issues/policies. It should be banned, rather than be allowed to remain as a clique that bans anyone who states facts they don't like to hear.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and spew the nasty shit about Obama plastered on every other wall here on DU, then yeah, you get your ass kicked out real fast, and hard.
sorry if you think that's shitty. too shitten bad.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And show what a "shitty" attitude and "shitty" bunch of characters the BOG is and just how "shitty" they are to their "fellow" DUers.
The fact that you posted that with presumably a "straight face" speaks wonders and proves my point completely. You are "inside the bubble" to use Maher's term, and we all know who's in there with you.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)like everyone else is here.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and/or stay out of groups you are not welcome in.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I guess that's progress.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)Why do you feel the need to go into that small corner of DU? I assure you, everyone in any group completely understands the dominant beliefs of the main forums.
Read some of the threads and you will see people who plead that in disagreeing with the President, you do not need to smear his motives and character are themselves attacked in extreme ways - at least as bad as what you say the BOG did. In general, I have found that many of the least aggressive people on DU are mostly in one group or another. Obviously, they are not here to fight.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)But no, the BOG is absolutely not looking for an honest discussion. I've peeked in there, by accident actually, and in the only 2-3 threads I looked at I saw them making nasty comments about other DUers as a whole, and talking like they are fighting a war with the rest of DU. Seriously, just like those people who I'm not allowed to compare them to.
Nothing obvious about the BOGgers not being here to fight. They are the most antagonistic group I have seen. And they are cowards for not allowing facts to be posted, even if done in the most civil manner. They are hiding their heads in the sand.
I don't feel a need to go in there... see my other reply for details.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)Take a Syria thread on Obama (or Kerry) and assume that whatever your opinion on a limited strike. you have respect for the man's integrity and intelligence, even if you disagree with his position. Read the first 10 or so posts - that in most threads reject the motives the man cited are true and infer that the motives are as base as possible. Then look at how anyone who disputes even the worst claims is treated. That is what they people are responding to -- at a site they likely joined when being here was much more enjoyable.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The policy should be that any posts that include nastiness, insults, etc... should be deleted and the poster given a warning. After a certain number of warnings you're banned. Period. By the same token, the BOG should be banned for the same reasoning. Especially since they are not interested in really discussing policy. As soon as there is a criticism of Obama it turns to the fact that Obama got criticized and off the policy under discussion.
There's better moderating on cell phone and car message boards and those discussions don't even get very heated! Although the political one on the car board I used to frequent did, and it had both ends of the spectrum on it and there was zero tolerance for name calling, or being nasty. Unfortunately, lies were okay, so some of us were constantly rebutting those, but it was done matter of factly, not with immature retorts as seen on here.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)However, it is usually not this bad as there has never been the series of issues that people here care as passionately about and which split the population as NSA and Syria have. My hope is that once those issues find resolution (and I hope a magical diplomatic solution is found for Syria though I am not optimistic) , things might become more cordial.
Anyway - nice conversation and I hope that you have a bit more understanding of what the groups are and even if you don't see the value in them that I do.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yeah, that or disagreeing with someone who's bashing the left, and pointing out to him that missiles don't help people.
In fact I suspect that out of the other 116 people - a staggering number - banned from the bog, it's more likely the latter than the former.
So there's that. Disagreeing with an anti-left, pro-war poster is deemed "disrupting" the swamp's purpose... Go figure! But you're totally not pro-war, nor are you right-winger, oh no sir, not at all
Whisp
(24,096 posts)You just carry on throwing sewage at the President wherever you like, but not in the group. There is lots of room for you to play.
If I recall correctly, that's been a habit of yours for a while now.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm curious if you can actually come up with a sane explanation of how the post I linked is "throwing sewage at the president." or how it's even disruptive to the bog.
DontTreadOnMe goes on an anti-left rant, and calls sympathy for the hungry and homeless.
Scootaloo calls him out on how much anti-left stuff he'd been posting on DU, and points out people can't eat or live in missiles.
At what point was there mention of Obama? At what point was there even sewage?
So. Your claim of what people get banned from the bog over is a lie, first off. Then your claim against me is another lie. Mmm. Is this a habit for you, Whisp?
Anyway. I'm not trying to change my status on the bog - having seen the sort of people run the show there i honestly think I'm better off with the group trashed. If I wanted to read stuff from anti-left shitheads who want to bomb middle eastern countries, I can go to any number of actual right-wing sites to deal with your like. But please, at least be honest with the rest of DU about what kind of standards you're running with, kay?
karynnj
(59,507 posts)Obama. It is a small group designed co be a place where people can have a conversation with people who have identified themselves as supporters of the President. There are several groups and each is defined in a post at the top of the group's posts. I know that I have benefited by having the groups - and my experience is that the groups provide both a safe place when the forums are hostile and they provide a place where posters can and do come to know each other. (In the Kerry group a large number of us have met in person.)
The question I have is why - if you are not a member of the BOG - do you feel the need to read it and to get angry about its existence? You may not feel welcome there, but it is a tiny corner of DU. At the moment, there may be many people from the BOG who are attacked on the main forums.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)that goes against the supposed goal of having discussions about policy. The fact that they ban people from the group for simply posting facts is crazy.
I don't go looking to read it, but if I click on a thread on the greatest page I don't check to see where it is located before reading it. If the group is going to shut out most of the DUers then their threads shouldn't show up on the greatest page. I could be wrong, I certainly don't know the ins and outs of groups on DU, but I think that there are other groups whose threads are not able to be seen on the greatest page. Considering that BOG stifles discussion and ideas rather than promotes them, and that they exclude most of DU, I feel they should then be left in their own area and not visible to the majority of DU who is not allowed to participate in it.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)but it is rare for many of them because they do not have the number of posts or recommendations to do so. I actually agree with you that it might - given the charter of the groups as safe places - that they NOT go to the latest or the greatest page. Then, only those looking for the BOG would go there.
There are times when the main groups do not facilitate discussion. I really do not think that there are many real productive discussions where information is exchanged and reasons for various positions are explained are happening in many of the threads in the forums. There is far too much anger toward anyone not 100% in agreement.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)that I felt were divisive in nature. DU should have a much better moderating system where any nastiness is simply not tolerate and only OPs discussing policy should be allowed.
I don't even necessarily agree with me posting about the BOG the way I do, but if the BOG is allowed to discriminate for no reason at all and be as nasty as they are then I feel I am allowed to speak my mind about them. But DU would be a much better place with much better moderation that disallowed both the BOG's mentality and my posts about them, among other things.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)I think during the primaries, they were great places to have the discussions on your candidate of choice where information is shared and people can become excellent advocates. I selfishly like them because when I joined in early 2005, I met a large group of people from whom I learned many ways to find REAL information - using the Congressional record and the Committees websites. It is incredible how much is available. I also met a large portion of the people over the years and was surprised that people were pretty much how they presented themselves.
Many of us were pushed to be more politically active in real life from our experience here. Not to mention - in a few cases where we actually went away from the written rule to investigate issues not specifically related to the politician of the group - it was a supportive friendly group where we could learn from others areas of knowledge and comfortably develop or change our own position or opinion.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)of facts and talk as if they are at war with the rest of DU, whom they exclude from their exclusive group.
LuvNewcastle
(16,860 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If not more, hardly bog
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I don't remember those during Iraq
Cleita
(75,480 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)They just would not have dared, not in a million years.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As to that, it may be somewhere.
Along with pictures of people killed in 911.
progressoid
(50,000 posts)Or was that just a snarky response to the over 100,000 civilians that were killed because of our Iraqi clusterfuck?
And then compare it to 9/11. Sweet jesus.
treestar
(82,383 posts)of the results of horrific attacks.
But when it was Manning, I guess it was OK.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Snowden leaked NSA information. Manning released evidence of torture and war crimes in Iraq. But pictures of victims didn't need to be leaked. They were not classified. They were all over the internet. The media chose not to really show that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)from conventional weapons in this war. Why would you accept such carnage? How do you sleep at night?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)which does attempt to prevent wars, but failing that, tries to create a few standards to move up from "all's fair in war."
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)None.
I don't find it acceptable, any more than the proposed "solution". But I don't demand that everything I don't accept is met with force
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)once said someplace, apparently the horrors from Agent Orange, Napalm and depleted uranium used by the US don't count as chemical weapons.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)always paint ourselves as heroes.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They're just trying to be a Democratic version of Faux
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)on CNN as well, with a warning that they would be "graphic".
I saw about 3 seconds of the first one and had to change the channel.
Whenever I think about the whole situation it makes me sick.
People dying from what they said was likely Sarin.
But people will die if we bomb.
I'm just sick and feel like crying
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Which host was it, do you know?
Let's not forget GE is very interested in war profits as they were for the Iraq war. Phil Donahue was fired for being anti iraq war.
Let's not forget that all the hosts there work for their pay checks before anything.
I don't know what to think about the Syria troubles, and how they can be properly solved.
But it is clear as a bell that the media salivate at the thought. And that disgusts me. To put those pics up reminds me of the incubator babies pre-desert storm.
Despicable fuckface, whoever did that.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)the name of the host. Karen Finney showed them again and did the disclaimer once, but since then hasn't. It's been just a string of pundits on. She doesn't seem prepared and is asking pointless questions.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Back in the WWi, it was "German soldeiers raping Belgium nuns" news headlines, to get the populace rooting and tooting for war.
MSM has been caught time and again showing faked news, to the point where many people do not consider them reliable.
I honestly have no idea why they are even on the air anymore.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)make an excuse to invade Poland. The Nazis killed a bunch of prisoners in a concentration camp, dressed them in outfits that I guess the radio station guys wore and a couple of SS uniforms for good measure. Then they invited the press to come and look at the bodies and allowed them to photograph them. The news reporters did that and the Germans were shocked at the newspapers reports and Hitler was then able to invade Poland.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Fascinating.
liberalhistorian
(20,819 posts)"please be journalists and stick to the known facts?"
Deep breath
Oh, man, thanks for the laugh, I sure needed it today!!
Of course, I'm old enough to remember a time when they mostly did just that, but time has long passed and is dead and gone. Much to our detriment as a democracy and a society.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)They've been insulting the people of this country far too long, while we either learn to "read" them, or we're lost, and just as ignorant as they, the stenographers, and the policy makers, want us to be.
We all remember all the photos we've seen of the genocide in US-supported regimes in Central America, or the state-supported acts of fiendish terrorism (U.S. supported) in South America, oh, wait! We never did! They keep ALL that stuff completely quiet for decades, at a minimum. If we EVER hear about it, it might be by accident.
That's why most of us didn't realize making torture victims, interrogation prisoners walk around with bags over their heads had been done constantly in the Kissinger-supported military dictatorship in Argentina in the '70's, early '80's. Taught all that crap at the School of the Americas.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)under Sec of State Hillary Clinton's watch and showed those suffering bodies and people.
Oh, I bet not, seeing as Finney is/was a Clintonite.
I don't know what the right answers are to Syria, but I do know the media always has the wrong ones.
Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)G_j
(40,372 posts)it's always been that way. Now it's even worse.
marew
(1,588 posts)But then, silly me, I also believe bodies blown up by bombs, riddled with bullets, or decapitated by machetes are gruesome and distressing also. So often we seem to look the other way regarding those.
I tend to suspect something is suspicious here. Someone is trying way too hard.
I saw something earlier where medical supplies- including pain meds and antibiotics- needed to care for so many suffering refugees are seriously dwindling. Why can't we start there? Why? We could help so many on a humanitarian basis right now.
Cleita, as you so correctly said- let's "stick to the known facts" for now.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)How will the war mongers profit on that?
marew
(1,588 posts)I do not look at the world through dollar signs! When will I ever learn? NEVER, I hope!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Also include the UN so this is not just us risking lives to save lives. We could do it. And Make Russia and China allow such aid or they too will be on the wrong side of the UN.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)There is no "making" China and Russia to do a damn thing, they have to be dealt with and negotiated with just like we do.
Honestly, even if that wasn't the case, what is it that you think being on the wrong side of the UN means to a world power? We've been on the wrong side a few times ourselves and it means nothing.
Surely you don't believe that Russia or China will be put in order by the world under a blue flag? Please don't be ridiculous.
Nobody but nobody is going to do squat to Russia or China. China could gas 500 million people and suffer little more than a wag of the finger. What did the UN do about Stalin and Mao? Well, they won't even be able to muster that much nothing in the current environment.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I try to check many stories, if they sound too good to be true then they just might be a lie. Most people do searches and believes the story they wanted in the first place.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)but most people don't. I never know how bad it is until I get engaged in a conversation with someone at the gym or other public place and if we discuss current events at all, they are so propagandized and misinformed, I can't even reply sometimes.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)carnage is considered "bad taste" but there are no cultural barriers against showing propaganda snuff films.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Doesn't mean others don't have the right to see the effects. Or to look at them to determine that it was indeed a gas attack. It's a free press.
You should also have been on Bush's side about now showing the coffins of troops coming into Dover Air Force Base. It makes just as much sense. Why should people see the effects of anything and be influenced by that?
marew
(1,588 posts)Barbara Bush said, "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths. Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and none of it is beautiful.
Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)DU, white phosphorus, and all of what WE have done would be the only FAIR response.
They want to employ shock and awe?? They need to be MADE to sit and watch detailed movies of everything the MIC has done. Everything.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)atrocities, then we are honor bound to show our atrocities. Also, no one, except Thom Hartmann talks about the effects of depleted uranium on the civilian population of Iraq, especially the freaky birth defects of infants whose mothers were exposed to it.
marew
(1,588 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)There has been a good debate ongoing today about all sides in this issue with a wide range of facts being presented, not just a showing of "snuff videos." Part of the discussion revolved around who the parties to the conflict are.
I have no objection to the showing of the destruction left by some of these weapons in any conflict. People need to understand that when we are talking about war, the consequences are much more real than blips on a video screen disappearing when zapped.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)having with them.
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)would they show the victims of cluster bombs?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2486127
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You didn't like the looks of it I bet huh? Well too bad...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)to make of it. There is a difference between showing Germans what the Nazis did during the holocaust because those things hadn't been seen before and trying to gin up a military strike in Syria. We have already seen the videos.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You didn't see these new ones they just released before....bless your little heart for not wanting your clean mind to be soiled with the images of death by poison gas...
Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)You haven't taken the time to actually read the comments.
You are among people who have a very keen grasp of the situation, without the emotional confusion, and the ignorance.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Nor have I "smeared" anyone...I just use the real definitions of words...
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)We shouldn't let blind partisanship lead us into another war. I don't care whether Barack Obama has a "D" behind his name or not. Our country has no business unilaterally attacking another country.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We are going to strike to take out the chemical weapons...we are not going to indiscriminately bomb civilians..
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)be the case. If Obama goes ahead and attacks Syria it could do great political damage to the Democratic Party and hinder our chances in the 2014 midterm elections. A lot of Democratic strategists are worried about that.
And we are not going to strike to take out the chemical weapons. The chemical weapons will not be a target.
http://world.time.com/2013/09/06/obama-orders-military-to-expand-syrian-targets/#ixzz2eJY15CK0
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I didn't say I dont support Republicans so I want to bomb Syria. I said I hate Republicans....so I support Democrats.
I also think that chemical weapons can be taken out with Jdams on military sites.
Skittles
(153,212 posts)riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)most likely wouldn't have parental blocks. But that's not the point. I've seen some pretty gory things when I was a child living in South America and all and survived without nightmares forever. They did go away after a few decades, but it's the purpose with which they were shown. The whole discussion could have been had about Obama's problem about causing more deaths and probably more gruesome videos because nobody wants his war. That whole discussion could have without showing the videos. They could have put them on the MSNBC website and pointed people to it as many others do to open them or not at their discretion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I saw a hell of a lot more real death and destruction in my youth than these kids today...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)bring out the injured, dying and dead on the flatbed rail cars, that passed in front of my house, that they brought them out in. Back then there were no ambulances in the mining camp. I saw the men covered in blood, screaming with missing limbs and faces half blown off, guts sometimes falling out. It wasn't a war zone, but I think being that it was because of dynamite it was similar to what happens when people are blown up. I saw it up close, real and personal, but I don't think everyone needs to see it ever in their life time if they weren't there or if for a higher purpose like to push a company into more safety measures, stuff like that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they all play video games with fake gore...perhaps they need a dose of reality.
treestar
(82,383 posts)seen those iconic photos - of the girl fleeing napalm or the guy being shot in the head. At least according to this line of thinking.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)because we might get upset and want something done.
It reminded me of a discussion on how the country became more eager to question and quit Vietnam due to seeing those photos.
But the OP doesn't realize that was the same thing, or to be consistent, would have to say we should not have seen that either.
IOW the OP is insisting there is an agenda here - so why wouldn't an agenda have been just as bad then?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)wouldn't that be the same thing?
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm for seeing it all.
OP didn't want to see it, so would that have applied to the photos from Vietnam?
marew
(1,588 posts)We do not have to see every little bit of every atrocity in history to comprehend the incredible pain and suffering involved. Rather voyeuristic I'd say. I guess some sick people enjoy seeing that type of thing over and over again. Most people do not, thank heaven!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)considering so many here are in denial...
marew
(1,588 posts)They simply want honest information.
Your fervent obsession with watching the same gore and human suffering over and over is not doing your cause any good. Borders a bit on the bizarre, quite frankly.
I would be much more impressed if you called for immediate humanitarian intervention but no- you just advocate watching suffering over and over and over... Do you have the same concern for those riddles with bullets or blown up by bombs?
pecwae
(8,021 posts)here is in any type of denial chemical attacks, not one. However, there seems to be more than a few in denial of the results of missile attacks. Of course, one death (or maybe a few, perhaps a hundred or so) would be worth it. Right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)all deaths are equal crowd need to see that chemical weapons are much more diabolical...
marew
(1,588 posts)who has suffered a slow torturous death from a bomb explosion or from being riddled with bullets or been hacked by a machete.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)EVERYONE knows that being killed by bullets is sooooooo much better...
Yes, this is sarcasm, and yes, this mindset actually exists on DU.
Also, White phosphorus somehow isn't a chemical weapon to the people with that mindset.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but it is allowed to be used for other reasons....as I am sure you know...Bush used it for other reasons...
But lets test your theory of death = death....why did folks jump out of windows in the World Trade Center....rather than burn?
Since it doesn't matter how you die....why would they do that?
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)in Iraq. And maybe we need to see videos of some of our Viet Nam vets who are dealing with the ravages of exposure to agent orange.
Look, we all know that these terrible things happen. The use of chemical and biological agents is as old as warfare itself. But when certain media outlets continue to show the same scenes over and over again it becomes obvious that there is an agenda involved. In this case it is MSNBC's shilling for Obama's Syrian war.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)You must be tired by now, huh?
All those dead kids, damn, get your war on, spanky!
Enlist now! What's stopping you?
RL
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)of hour long nightly specials, each night a different country. Then start the series on covert ops, then extraordinary renditions, one featuring the school of the Americas, and then deposed democratically elected leaders.
"The MIC at War" --it would write itself.
Judi Lynn
(160,645 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)Many here keep hiding behind the propaganda idea that someone other than Assad did this. We have known for several years about the stockpiles of chemical weapons he has, we should have acted on this back then, but we ignored the facts back then. It has now come to a point that something has to be done. You can not continue to ignore facts.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)And the Dead "Little Ones" sleep...vicitims of Violence...New Ones Every Day!
The lifeless bodies of Afghan children lay on the ground before their funeral ceremony, after an airstrike on their extended family household by order of President Barack Obama killed several Afghan adults and at least ten children in Shultan, Shigal district, Kunar, eastern Afghanistan, Sunday, April 7, 2013. (AP Photo)
Date: April 7, 2013
Place: Shigal District of Kunar Province
Circumstances: Eleven children and four women were killed by a NATO airstrike on houses in the Shigal District. Mohammad Zahir Safai, the Shigal district chief, said the woman and the children were killed when the houses collapsed on them. A Reuters journalist saw bodies of 11 children when they were taken to Safais office in protest by their families and other villagers on Sunday.
NATO/ISAF response: Captain Luca Carniel, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said they were aware of reports of civilian casualties and were assessing the incident.
http://vcnv.org/atrocities-in-afghanistan-a-troubling-timetable-updated-1
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122789/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#storylink=cpy
A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.
The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.
But Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.
~snip~
Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. "The tragedy," he said, "is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them."
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Response to Cleita (Original post)
Jesus Malverde This message was self-deleted by its author.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)But when it's something our military has done. Americans have been to far removed from the real world and the effects of war.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)When a bomb in Iraq hit the wrong target, the media showed the result in loop mode. When two different US soldiers went on a rampage and killed civilians, the media showed the scenes over and over. When a group of Marines pissed on the body of dead Taliban, those photos were shown over and over by the media. In all cases, showing the information over and over helped with convicting the soldiers, and the media reported the convictions. When high level military officers do something wrong, that gets reported in the media.
One of the reasons why the President is having problems getting consensus on striking Syria is because of the abundant past reporting about the false information that was used to get the USA into the second Iraq war.
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/101672442
That you would prefer to ignore suffering of others is your problem entirely.
marew
(1,588 posts)That someone who is not obsessed with watching people suffering and dying is actually, in fact, ignoring that same suffering?
It is not normal to want to watch pain and suffering, believe me!
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)Which means she does not want he public to see it. It's easy to turn off the TV, but that's not enough. She objects to the very fact it is airing and calls it a "snuf film." It's clear to me this is an effort to distort and deny information to support an anti-war view. The situation is not so simple as people want to make it. There are no good guys in white hats here. Assad is a brutal dictator who gassed his people, AND the US has a bad history of intervening and fucking things up.
I understand it is not typical for the coddled American to be exposed to the horror of war, even when we wage it. The MIC has done everything it can to shelter us from that reality. Here is a case where the suffering has not been created by us, but people continue to insist on hiding form it. People need to know the full reality of what's going on, including the brutality of gassing Syrians.
Also the fact she denied the origins of the video shows she's intent on denying that reality to make her understanding of the problem as simplistic as possible.
If someone wants to hide from the truth, that's here business, but to object to the media's informing the public is pernicious. It's also part of this ongoing meme that MSNBC is supposed to make liberals feel good about themselves rather than report anything that makes us feel uncomfortable. It's one thing for corporate media interests to corrupt news coverage and another for DUer to demand that corruption.
those are the facts. People being killed by WMDs. Now what to do.
Response to Cleita (Original post)
malletgirl02 This message was self-deleted by its author.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)just because it doesn't fit YOUR political agenda ...
doesn't mean people should hear no evil or see no evil and hide under the blankets...
pretty silly and niave of you to ask dontcha think? nah, im sure if you just ignore it enough itll go away.
marew
(1,588 posts)I'd be much more impressed if one of these voyeurs would advocate sending the badly needed supplies- including pain meds, food, and antibiotics- to the suffering refugee victims already desperate for help. Sanjay Gupta spoke earlier about this. Why are these victims- who we could help right now- being ignored? But no- they say just watch the horrors and atrocities over and over again!
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Shameless. I don't get why anyone would even watch such shit (be it MSNBC, CNN, Fox... It's all the same.. But it is not news..)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)born with birth defects because of the depleted uranium in our weapons of war. I haven't seen one. I heard about it from Thom Hartmann, but there seems to be no pictures in the MSM.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)marew
(1,588 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)War is nasty business, innocent people accidentally get injured or killed, that is why war should be the last option. To claim that no dead Iraqis have been shown to the US pubic is dealing in falsehoods, IMO.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)ludicrous. As is the assertion that the US has adequatly dealed with those guilty of the crimes. Now THAT is dealing in falsehoods.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We have punished a few low-ranking grunts. The men who gave the orders remain untouchable.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... on DVD to see.
Like it or not - it is NEWS.
JCMach1
(27,579 posts)should be required to watch...
delrem
(9,688 posts)Thanks to original post on DU (forget whose OP)
This is directly in re. the MSM propaganda blitz at the time.
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html
In Unreliable Sources, authors Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted that "when a research team from the communications department of the University of Massachusetts surveyed public opinion and correlated it with knowledge of basic facts about US policy in the region, they drew some sobering conclusions: The more television people watched, the fewer facts they knew; and the less people knew in terms of basic facts, the more likely they were to back the Bush administration."
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It made for an emotional response with Bush #1 getting full support for freeing Kuwait. Anyone who probed further would have known that the situation of Saddam invading Kuwait was far more complicated. At least Bush #1 wisely did not push to go all the way to Bagdad like that fat general Schwartzsomething or the other wanted him to.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They have been shown so often they are now just camp, and camp in very bad taste at that.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)4bucksagallon
(975 posts)When you say they admit the source is questionable. Makes your post..........questionable.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)not before. I don't know what you are saying.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)He could just put his feet up on the desk and take up smoking again for the next few years and ride out his term. Why is he into this if he doesn't think something should be done?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Can't have that. It's their money who mostly financed his runs for Presidency. Now he has to pay up on their investments. Or, at least that kind of makes sense to me because nothing else does. If you have a better reason, say it.
polynomial
(750 posts)One of the other commenters included a video with Thom Hartmann and a Mr. Papantonio deeply describes the money political angle America is confronted with in the Arabs. In the utube video the argument clearly revealed American again as a proxy army for the Arabs. Its all money and oil moreover, Bush and, Cheney as shadow point political party, via Cayman Island free money speech to destroy Obamas credibility. Money talks and they have that trillion dollar secret derivative market. Oops here comes another bail.
We all have to learn second term politics likely is always on the edge of war and looming economic disaster. Imagine the corporate swindlers of the past gave Obama a broken promise with a squeeze that is much more even after the bail out. Especially more important the reason for the Syria boil over is the American public is going through title fraud which is nothing more than a huge land grab by banks of the one percent right here in America.
I agreement with a few other commentators on the Du, but why in the world is there no talk of medicine, gas masks, food, that floating hospital or loan one of our huge carriers to offer medical treatment doctors nurses or something to include the united nations has doctors social workers.
Offer technology the military can set up cell phone networks within days if not hours. Oh dear God in heaven hear my prayer, Please let our president hear this message President Obama send good will to people of Syria do these things before any bombing. Dam the Arab, Bin Laden family or the Bush Cheney Halliburton Cayman Island secret political creeps. I will pay for the higher price in gas just to see them hang, for we are in hell now so let America hand this hell it back to them.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)borders to them are overwhelmed and cannot take adequate care of them. Those countries and the social workers and medics working in those camps need so much help in the things you describe. One of those Tomahawk missiles costs one and a half millions dollars. Imagine, the bandages, water, infant formula, etc., etc. one of those missiles would buy.
cash__whatiwant
(396 posts)Yes. They want us to get behind this soooo badly I've noticed. I'd like to think they're not a left leaning fox news to where their job is to get those on the left to give 100 percent to th e administration. Very disappointing.
JI7
(89,279 posts)DiverDave
(4,887 posts)They should fire that moron, but they will probably promote him (or her)
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)by military intervention. That won't stop the atrocities but it will accelerate them. There are other ways that aren't even being tried. This is a move by the MIC to stuff their bank accounts with blood money. If you are falling for this ruse, I feel sorry for you.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)No wonder you can't think beyond using bombs.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Videos like these vids more often with proper context. Americans need to see what violence looks like. Of course, all with context.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)are unverified. So why show them unless they are verified? It seems the purpose is just for sensationalism and to evoke an emotional response from the public.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know what they are intended to do, as long as they keep harping...they are unverified.
Americans need to see this crap, not the Hollywood version of sanitized violence.
chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)turned the people against the war?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Actually, AlJazeera shows even more shocking footage of war zones in the ME because people should see the unvarnished horrors of war, but the coverage doesn't take sides and is shown in context of a story. These videos come across obviously as deliberate propaganda to provoke an emotional response.