the BREAKING NEWS debate thread

[Axis Kast]

I said "your claim" to make clear that it was posted by you in a certain thread.

CNN, Fox, and other "mainstream" sources at least ammend their data fairly frequently.

I still place more faith in CNN and Fox than in the Russian intelligence reports. Looking over them again, they are as self-indulgent as the American networks and no less biased than the French.

The SCUD claim? What were the missiles, then, al-Samouds?

[Vympel]

I said "your claim" to make clear that it was posted by you in a certain thread.

CNN, Fox, and other "mainstream" sources at least ammend their data fairly frequently.

I still place more faith in CNN and Fox than in the Russian intelligence reports. Looking over them again, they are as self-indulgent as the American networks and no less biased than the French.

They're about the same in my eyes- everything with mountain of salt. At worst, they're counter-propaganda, and at most, there may be some facts in there.

The SCUD claim? What were the missiles, then, al-Samouds?

Most likely- all that is known is that the Pentagon of all places has flatly denied the SCUD reports.

[K. A. Pital]

Vympel

Most likely- all that is known is that the Pentagon of all places has flatly denied the SCUD reports.

I heard some suspicion on SCUDs but that's long disproved. They were al-Samouds.

[BoredShirtless]

Your argument for choosing one side is self defeating. If the French media can't be trusted because they're critical, then the coalition media can't be trusted because they're optimistic. 10 dead soldiers is 10 dead soldiers. Wrap that in an opinion, you still get 10 dead soldiers.

If one station is optimistic and another blatantly critical, why shouldn’t I exercise my right to listen to the source most compatible with my opinions? After all, if the news is the same – and it’s not; the French channel is far less comprehensive -, what’s the problem?

Exercise that right. I'm arguing you won't get an accurate picture, that's all. It's usually fanatics or the weak who refuse to listen to different opinions.

I have not said that the French station lied – merely that their news was sub-par and their opinions unacceptable to me. I don’t see why you should be critical of that other than to wrongly paint me as some kind of jingoistic fool for not appreciating “the other side.”

You don't need to appreciate different opinions, but you should listen to them.

Link to executed POWs story?

According to MSNBC and FOX news, the government now fears that four of the 507th Maintenance personnel were shot in the head. The French statements were made on television. Don’t tell me you’ve heard nothing of this.

Your backpeddling duly noted:

I take things with a grain of salt, but I’m not going to sit down and watch the French bash my country and suggest that executed prisoners-of-war got some of their own medicine, no.

They claim to be analyzing intercepted radio comm and using satellite images, those resources mainstream media do not have.

I seriously doubt whether the Russian military’s analysis of the ground war is being let slip into the hands of their media.

Why have the French and Germans chosen not to release similar data?

Red herring.

Tell me how.

Vympel posted information on the “Breaking News” thread that seven American fuel transports had been destroyed during an ambush and three prisoners taken by Iraqi special forces.

Huh? How is this an example of emotive langauge changing information?

Fucking so what?

If the French provide late and inadequate coverage as compared to other media sources, why read or watch? If the sole difference is one of opinion, why should I subject myself to it?

Stop being retarded, comparing the timing of 91 Gulf War Syndrome stories is a stupid fucking argument for being "late" in releasing stories of todays war. As to your claims of inadequacy, can you put an argument up?

[Nathan F]

The SCUD claim? What were the missiles, then, al-Samouds?

As a matter of fact....

[Rob Wilson]

What is it about this site that earned your trust?

Look, this is a war ok? Everone has got many reasons to lie through their ass, especially those directly involved. So I take the party who has the least number of reasons to lie, and assign them the most credibility.

So you'll trust a source that lies about how it gets info, is answerable to noone and must be making up any stories it says are coming from 'Intercepts'?

I think I'll stick with sources that just might tell the truth at least 50% of the time.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm going to sticky this thread. Consider this the official "BREAKING NEWS" debate thread.

[BoredShirtless]

What is it about this site that earned your trust?

Look, this is a war ok? Everone has got many reasons to lie through their ass, especially those directly involved. So I take the party who has the least number of reasons to lie, and assign them the most credibility.

So you'll trust a source that lies about how it gets info, is answerable to noone and must be making up any stories it says are coming from 'Intercepts'?

I think I'll stick with sources that just might tell the truth at least 50% of the time.

1. For fucks sake please stop with this crap about me trusting the site.
2. GRE obviously don't want to inform the US how they capture radio intercepts so they posted some bullshit which would fool 99% of the people ...doesn't mean the actual reports are phony too. They've been vindicated numerous times.
3. No seriously, have a look at as many sites as possible.

[Axis Kast]

Exercise that right. I'm arguing you won't get an accurate picture, that's all. It's usually fanatics or the weak who refuse to listen to different opinions.

At this point in time, CNN and FOX are providing both more and better coverage than both the French and Russians.

I reiterate. The French sources often give the same information – albeit on a much smaller and less-comprehensive scale – as American networks but do so with a pessimistic and gloating view rather than optimism. There is no real difference between the two other than that the American, British, and Australian sources to which I have access provide more news. And because the French merely repeat what I have already heard but in a less welcome tone, why should I want to keep from flipping the channel?

You don't need to appreciate different opinions, but you should listen to them.

I already know the French and Russian opinions. Listening to their coverage of the war does nothing but expose me to propaganda. Now don’t tell me you really believe I’m getting poor coverage merely because I don’t watch the French station and let others report on the Russian sources for me?

Your backpeddling duly noted.

“Backpedaling?” The French and CNN gave similar coverage of the prisoners-of-war but for the fact that the French called it “a taste of their own medicine” and the Americans “a terrible loss.” And whatsmore is that while the French channel went on to cover the infirmities of the European Union’s new members, CNN continued to provide coverage of the prisoners.

Red herring.

Not at all. You ask me why I mistrust the sources. I am telling you it is because the Russian site appears to be unique in its claims that intelligence agents are providing analysis. I seriously doubt whether the GRU is actually feeding information to media sources.

Huh? How is this an example of emotive langauge changing information?

It doesn’t change information, but when it’s the only difference, why not chose the opinion I like best?

Stop being retarded, comparing the timing of 91 Gulf War Syndrome stories is a stupid fucking argument for being "late" in releasing stories of todays war. As to your claims of inadequacy, can you put an argument up?

The French gave a fifteen-minute blurb of some guy in the United States with Gulf War syndrome. My local paper had four pages on the topic coupled with interviews on FOX with former veterans. Not only did the French break the story late – as an obvious argument against the war -, but they offered less complete coverage as compared to the Americans.

I’m comparing them because I want to point out the disparity in the quality of reporting.

[Vympel]

So, Iraqi TV finally got bombed. All we need is Fox News to get bombed and they'll be even-steven.

[Shaidar Haran]

So, Iraqi TV finally got bombed. All we need is Fox News to get bombed and they'll be even-steven.

Yup. Hopefully we can get Al-Jezeera while we're at it. Can't say that I'd miss either much.

[Vympel]

So, Iraqi TV finally got bombed. All we need is Fox News to get bombed and they'll be even-steven.

Yup. Hopefully we can get Al-Jezeera while we're at it. Can't say that I'd miss either much.

Faux is now denouncing Iraqi partisans as 'terrorists'.

[Axis Kast]

I just took a longer look at that Russian site you use.

When the header is, "Iraq War - War Against the People," I become very skeptical of the information contained therein. It appears to be a comprehensive effort to deny all Coalition gains, take all estimates to their bare-bones worst, and paint every American or Coalition source as distributing baselessly optimistic lies.

[jegs2]

So, Iraqi TV finally got bombed. All we need is Fox News to get bombed and they'll be even-steven.

Yup. Hopefully we can get Al-Jezeera while we're at it. Can't say that I'd miss either much.

Faux is now denouncing Iraqi partisans as 'terrorists'.

When their tactics include dressing in US soldier uniforms, accepting the surrender of their own troops, and executing them, there are few places they wouldn't be considered as terrorists -- like perhaps in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Empire. For extra fun, they like to round up and kill those who refuse to fight or those who try to leave the city. I suppose if you're a fan of murderous tyrants, they could be considered "partisans" or "freedom fighters."

[Vympel]

When their tactics include dressing in US soldier uniforms accepting the surrender of their own troops, and executing them

You believe that BS? First of all, where'd they get the uniforms? Unless the body count is MUCH higher than they're saying, they wouldn't have any to use.

For extra fun, they like to round up and kill those who refuse to fight or those who try to leave the city. I suppose if you're a fan of murderous tyrants, they could be considered "partisans" or "freedom fighters."

A partisan is a partisan, whether they're fighting for an unsavory side or not- I don't attack positive or negative connotations to the word- partisans in the Soviet Union were dressed up as civilians- many of them were soldiers of the Red Army who had managed to evade capture in the disasters of 1941- were they 'terrorists' because they weren't dumb enough to stay in uniform so they could easily be killed? In addition, when you attack a military target during an invasion, you're NOT a terrorist.

[Axis Kast]

You believe that BS? First of all, where'd they get the uniforms? Unless the body count is MUCH higher than they're saying, they wouldn't have any to use.

Newspapers over here were printing stories about Hussein's purchase of BDUs and other Western equipment in weeks prior to the war.

[jegs2]

When their tactics include dressing in US soldier uniforms accepting the surrender of their own troops, and executing them

You believe that BS? First of all, where'd they get the uniforms? Unless the body count is MUCH higher than they're saying, they wouldn't have any to use.

I will readily believe it over the "sources" you've been quoting. As to where they got the uniforms, the post above mine answers your query, but you likely already knew that -- it was certainly no secret.

A partisan is a partisan, whether they're fighting for an unsavory side or not- I don't attack positive or negative connotations to the word- partisans in the Soviet Union were dressed up as civilians- many of them were soldiers of the Red Army who had managed to evade capture in the disasters of 1941- were they 'terrorists' because they weren't dumb enough to stay in uniform so they could easily be killed? In addition, when you attack a military target during an invasion, you're NOT a terrorist.

...and when you target your own civilians and soldiers, you're a terrorist. Terrorists don't need apologists and those who try to redefine them to sound less ominous -- they need death.

[Vympel]

I will readily believe it over the "sources" you've been quoting.

Just because I posted them (not recently) doesn't mean I *believe* them- you should've noticed my comment in my very first post of it.

And good work dodging the question.

...and when you target your own civilians and soldiers, you're a terrorist. Terrorists don't need apologists and those who try to redefine them to sound less ominous -- they need death.

The partisans in the Ukraine shot collaborators with the Nazis- were they terrorists, or patriots? Who gets to decide? Not Fox News, that's for sure.

[Vympel]

Newspapers over here were printing stories about Hussein's purchase of BDUs and other Western equipment in weeks prior to the war.

Got links? How does Iraq buy Western equipment? Especially American uniforms?

[jegs2]

And good work dodging the question.

I don't answer stupid questions. That information is readily known. Any dolt can engage a common search engine to find links -- as to where I've heard it, it was on Fox news, which you readily discredit, but since your "sources" are highly suspect, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Vympel]

I don't answer stupid questions. That information is readily known.

How the fuck is "where'd they get the uniforms" a stupid question?! I guess when Fox News says Basra has fallen for the umpteenth time, I better not ask any questions- they said it on TV, it must be true!

Any dolt can engage a common search engine to find links -- as to where I've heard it, it was on Fox news, which you readily discredit, but since your "sources" are highly suspect, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Persisting with the goddamn red herrings I see- do I have to fucking quote myself?

Possible counter-propaganda? If so, for what purpose? Well- you decide. I sure as hell don't know what to believe.

(yes, that's right, *counter* propaganda. Because if you stick with the mainstream for your news you're not going to get jack shit information. Long live the internet.)

[Axis Kast]

I can't find the articles now. It was plastered all over TV though. Word is Hussein managed to purchase BDUs that look very much like the real thing. And in the dark, that's all you need. Especially if you're dealing with your own people or trying to trick Coalition troops into hesitation.

[Stormbringer]

Newspapers over here were printing stories about Hussein's purchase of BDUs and other Western equipment in weeks prior to the war.

Got links? How does Iraq buy Western equipment? Especially American uniforms?

BDUs, hell, you can find those at a good military surplus store. They wouldn't be too hard to find. And depending of what you mean by Western equipment there are probably similarly simple ways.

[jegs2]

*SNIP*

You're an apologist for terrorists -- I'll not waste further time on you.

[Vympel]

BDUs, hell, you can find those at a good military surplus store. They wouldn't be too hard to find. And depending of what you mean by Western equipment there are probably similarly simple ways.

It's not just the BDUs- in order for it to be remotely credible you need the helmets, the weapons (like come on, you see a US soldier sporting an AK and looking remarkably like his name is Ahmed, I doubt you'd go surrender to him), the equipment etc.

Doing some searching, I saw that on March 07 some US official made the claim (not providing how they knew it to be the case). Fox News repeated it, and so did everyone else. Asides from that, nothing else has been provided. I smell propaganda (until I see pictures- shouldn't be too hard to find a dead Fedayeen- fuck that sounds like it's from Dune).