Tremulous Forum

Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: Garion on July 16, 2011, 07:45:02 pm

Title: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 16, 2011, 07:45:02 pm
Important events are going on the in what is called the ''Arab world''. As contemporary history teaches us, the governments of occident seized many opportunities to do war propaganda. Once again, we are presented informations that are highly contested, for reasons. A French journalist, named Thierry Meyssan, investigated the situations of what is presented to us, by the mainstream medias, as a civil war. His words are shocking and will surely give you another vision of what's really happening in the ''Arab world''. The main countries on which Thierry Meyssan is developing his informations are Libya, primarily, and Syria. Here is the video in question, it's in English and lasts 11 minutes 30 seconds : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1QzTGPLbYI&feature=player_embedded

Feel free to leave a comment, discuss and debate.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on July 16, 2011, 08:36:00 pm
If I understood correctly, Thierry Meyssan is saying that the west is puppeteering and misreporting the events of the Arab Spring and predicting pretty much every evil will be taken to it's extreme. He doesn't sound like a credible expert who weighs the facts and makes fair judgements. He sounds like he's going for 'The Big Lie' angle (which as it happens was the name of his book on the events of 9/11).

Also, when this interviewer says "What you are saying is terrible, is shocking! So do you think the truth, this truth, could ever be established, could ever be recognised?" about some claims a guy just asserted, alarm bells should be going off in your head as to the extreme bias of this news report.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on July 18, 2011, 09:52:06 am
If I understood correctly, Thierry Meyssan is saying that the west is puppeteering and misreporting the events of the Arab Spring and predicting pretty much every evil will be taken to it's extreme. He doesn't sound like a credible expert who weighs the facts and makes fair judgements. He sounds like he's going for 'The Big Lie' angle (which as it happens was the name of his book on the events of 9/11).

Also, when this interviewer says "What you are saying is terrible, is shocking! So do you think the truth, this truth, could ever be established, could ever be recognised?" about some claims a guy just asserted, alarm bells should be going off in your head as to the extreme bias of this news report.

on the other hand, the west has been puppeteering in the middle east since ww2.  not saying this guy is not some fuck trying to make a buck selling sensationalist material, though.

still, what's his face, the lybian dictator, he was our buddy in the 70's.  hell, we put sadam into power in the first place, because of the fucked up series of coups we instigated in iran.  we trained and supplied osama in the 80's because he was fighting the soviets in afghanistan.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on July 18, 2011, 02:12:51 pm
Yes, there is a long credible history of, for instance, America employing covert operations in order to overthrow regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions). As I understand it, this has always been a case of helping people who were already in these nations already opposing these regimes. In some cases, it would be a small group of people who would be aided in a Coup d'état. In other cases it would be large portions of the population already engaged in civil war. So the puppeteering is something much more realistic than the crack-pot theories would prefer.
These people already want regime change and the US (for example) picks it's friends by who their enemies are. We're NOT talking here about huge numbers of population being brainwashed to hate thier government. We're talking about "You don't like that guy and neither do we. So we'll help you out and you can have all the glory!".

I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening. I get annoyed by people who make outrageous assumptions.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on July 19, 2011, 01:12:45 am
Yes, there is a long credible history of, for instance, America employing covert operations in order to overthrow regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions). As I understand it, this has always been a case of helping people who were already in these nations already opposing these regimes. In some cases, it would be a small group of people who would be aided in a Coup d'état. In other cases it would be large portions of the population already engaged in civil war. So the puppeteering is something much more realistic than the crack-pot theories would prefer.
These people already want regime change and the US (for example) picks it's friends by who their enemies are. We're NOT talking here about huge numbers of population being brainwashed to hate thier government. We're talking about "You don't like that guy and neither do we. So we'll help you out and you can have all the glory!".

I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening. I get annoyed by people who make outrageous assumptions.

personally, i think we here in america should stop dicking with the sovereignty of other nations.  i think that our current crop of wars could have been avoided if we were not "nation building" from the 60's and 70's on.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 04:35:23 am
Here's another video, in english once again, the man speaking in this is called Webster Tarpley : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjxeng_tarpley-la-situation-en-libye-au-14-juillet-s-t_news#from=embediframe

@Nux, I can see that your opinion is also extremely biased : "I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening. I get annoyed by people who make outrageous assumptions." This phrase is clearly pointing out which version you believe in, and it also highlights on the solidity of your trust, because you basically admit the main version to be essentially true, to the least. You are separating what is right and what is outrageous, depending on if it is in accord with the occidental mainstream media's version. It is not only a fatal error for your intellectual independence, but also you disqualify our freedom of thoughts and the credibility of those who make a sincere and good work.

Also, I don't know what kind of talents you hold to judge the credibility of a man, his intentions and his ideas as wrong, even if you know almost nothing about him.    



"As I understand it, this has always been a case of helping people who were already in these nations already opposing these regimes."

And the case of Saudi is a perfect example of the US good influence and good will?  ::)



"These people already want regime change and the US (for example) picks it's friends by who their enemies are. We're NOT talking here about huge numbers of population being brainwashed to hate thier government. We're talking about "You don't like that guy and neither do we. So we'll help you out and you can have all the glory!"."

Seems a bit weak in term of Geo-political analysis. First of all, it should be known that many people in Libya did not want a regime change. Many of the persons in Libya who joined the group of rebel for change switched to support Qaddafi, as they realized many of the things that were reported on Qaddafi's concern were falsified or not founded (the viagra and the murder of 6000 people, for example).  Secondly, if you seriously believe the United-States are the Superman of this world and are only helping others because they are the axis of good, then you should stop watching any Hollywood's movie. Control over Africa would bring the United-States a lot more power, economically or militarily speaking for example. It is the beginning of a new colonization project in Africa.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on July 19, 2011, 07:07:05 am
not to mention, we put that lybian dictator in power in the 70's or 80's... i forget the exact details.

same with egypt, iraq, iran....

about the only "enemies" we have right now that we cannot be said to have directly created (though indirectly is another story) is n. korea and china. 

the current state of the mideast is the result of the "proxy wars" the us waged against the ussr. as part of the cold war, neither the us or ussr were quite willing to come into open conflict with each other, so they both supported factions in "developing nations", such as korea, vietnam, afghanistan, cuba, and so on.

webster tarply is a much better reference.  he's not quite as much a sensationalist.  i'd reference him before, say, alex jones, for this very reason.

garion (no bel- prefix?), you have to understand that for most people, there is no other source of news other than the mainstream outlets.  for the most part, people have not noticed the media's gradual shifting of reporting the facts, to publishing opinions.

i disagree with your anylisis of the situation in africa.   no one wants to colonise it, they just want the vast wealth of natural resources.  african nations, generally speaking, are not poor for any other reason than foreign powers controlling their resources.  consider that a good portion of diamonds come from africa, and the companies that own the diamond mines are based in london.

consider the south american gold miners who earn about $25 per ounce of gold they produce (gold is $1600 an ounce).

it is not so much that our government is inherently evil or good or anything, it is that large, multinational corporations have bought out much of the government.  consider the matter of "lobbying".  were i, as an individual, to donate a million to a politician's re-election campaign, and fly him out to the caymen islands for lunch once a week for the purpose of him voting favourably or introducing legislation that favors me, that would be bribery, and illegal.  now if i did the same as the agent of a corporation, it is perfectly legal.

because war is good for business, it is no wonder that strings are pulled to ensure there is ALWAYS a war to fight.  especially when you consider that here in america, we have outsourced all of our historical exports, aside from tools of war.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 03:03:16 pm
I'll say it one last time, Thierry Meyssan is ABSOLUTELY NOT a buck selling sensationalist. A sensationalist would definitely have avoided the diabolization of the medias and all the risks Thierry Meyssan is taking, just for the good of the business, so it doesn't make much sense. Also, he's a well known french journalist, for those who don't believe too much in the medias.

As for my comment on the mainstream media, I thought I was clear enough, I just wanted to say that Nux seems to discredit any non-mainstream media with the use of his devoid of sense and devoid of realism reason, but when it comes to the mainstream media he doesn't seem to ask for much proof and he just adopt the informations they're giving him. In my opinion, this lacks coherence.

As for Africa, you must remember that money isn't only for wealth, especially not when you're a banker who's family could get a better social importance through history by waging war and including themselves in politics (Rothschild, I'm looking at you!). At some point, money becomes the way of power, so more money means more power. We could almost see it as "mana". But the power of money isn't useful anywhere, and it won't get you anything from anyone. Some people also have a lot of moneys, or some countries. In order to still be strong against these other big actors (China, Russia for example), Africa must be colonized and it must become a base for the army of the NATO. Do not forget that they will control many important water points in Libya and, and their power will physically* extend to a larger amount of persons (the Africans) and it will be a much more solid and dangerous power.

*because they will be able to send their soldiers on the ground and deploy them and their equipments, and this conquest is going along with the coup that they're making in the politics of the states their attacking. So, the military power they will get and the political power they will get by basing.

You government isn't inherently good or evil? Then how come they have almost always been the heritor of a banker's project (since at least the last 60 years), and that they couldn't avoid it because of their power, and that this project is satanist, as it does nothing, nowadays, but create chaos on the world?

edit: Gold is raising because more and more bankers are buying gold back and because the dollar is losing it's value. Let's not forget the demand, that keeps raising. In fact, the euro and the dollar are about to explode, so we will most likely go back to gold*. For instance, I think about 13 states in the U-S have gone back to the gold as their primary money. This, of course, is kept silent by our medias.

*As the bankers aren't really stupid, they knew the fall of the dollar would happen, so they already started to buy gold and primary resources, to have control over the wealth and make money from it (they could make 20% interest over anyone who's farming, just like in feudal time).  
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on July 19, 2011, 03:29:22 pm
Note that I said the interview was biased, not you. If you want to call me biased then that's your conclusion and you can go into greater detail on how exactly I'm controlled by a media that I distrust a lot of the time too. Perhaps you think I follow the American fox news or that I base my views on some crummy British tabloid like The Sun or the Daily Mail. In actuality, I greet every news report with skepticism and I use the best of my ability to discern what is relevant and what is likely true. This doesn't require delving into the life history of some man and it's especially easy to spot the overly dramatic sensationalism (doesn't mean what's said is false, just that the truth is more boring). You seem to think I'm biased because I occasionally agree with what the consensus view is, and I would say you're foolish if you always flatly deny what the mainstream media reports.

Everything you said about morals is blatently ignoring what I said: "I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening". I do not think that "United-States are the Superman of this world" by far. I don't know what would make you think I thought that.

Thierry Meyssan is not taking risks. The only thing his expressing extreme views will do is sell more books to people who share those extreme views.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 04:14:07 pm
Note that I said the interview was biased, not you. If you want to call me biased then that's your conclusion and you can go into greater detail on how exactly I'm controlled by a media that I distrust a lot of the time too. Perhaps you think I follow the American fox news or that I base my views on some crummy British tabloid like The Sun or the Daily Mail. In actuality, I greet every news report with skepticism and I use the best of my ability to discern what is relevant and what is likely true. This doesn't require delving into the life history of some man and it's especially easy to spot the overly dramatic sensationalism (doesn't mean what's said is false, just that the truth is more boring). You seem to think I'm biased because I occasionally agree with what the consensus view is, and I would say you're foolish if you always flatly deny what the mainstream media reports.

Everything you said about morals is blatently ignoring what I said: "I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening". I do not think that "United-States are the Superman of this world" by far. I don't know what would make you think I thought that.

Thierry Meyssan is not taking risks. The only thing his expressing extreme views will do is sell more books to people who share those extreme views.

"I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening"

You said you didn't mind questioning the morality of what is likely happening, thus it implies we must question the morality of what is seemingly happening? We can't just say it's not true? We must accept it as true and simply question the morality of the truth, or else we make outrageous assumptions? Your methods of thinking seem biased to me. Logically, it's just horrible, as you accept the the likelihood of the official version and you discredit, without any arguments*, the version of Thierry Meyssan, then you say he's taking no risk**.

*As I said, you only bring arguments when it is to doubt of the different versions, but you accept the thesis of the official mainstreams without any resistance. Eventho you supposedly think before adopting somthing. Didn't you just agreed with the biggest part of the lie? : "These people already want regime change and the US (for example) picks it's friends by who their enemies are. We're NOT talking here about huge numbers of population being brainwashed to hate thier government. We're talking about "You don't like that guy and neither do we. So we'll help you out and you can have all the glory!"." (this is from you, in case you didn't realize.)

**Thierry Meyssan is taking risk, you don't even know him nor his experience. He was the victim of a killing tentative, many places where he was supposed to communicate with the medias were destroyed soon before he would be there, to ensure he cannot talk, he's demonized by the mainstream medias. Right now, I believe he's still in Libya, so he can do his job : journalism. If he wanted to sell, he wouldn't be in Libya, since Libya is being cut out from the rest of the worlds. For instance, Libya's television isn't accessible from many places in occident, even on the internet there is censure of the people from Libya so they can't communicate with the rest of the world, and one of their satellite is being targeted. So if Thierry Meyssans wanted to make money and live a life in wealth, he would definitely follow another path, the same as the corrupted politics who don't risk anything, who stays in their home and just betray their people. So please, stop talking out of your ass, because you know almost nothing about Thierry Meyssan. You protect the official version with every argument possible and impossible, yet you make free assumption on the other versions and on those who are caliming these versions. Seems pretty biased to me.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on July 19, 2011, 05:10:18 pm
I don't know whether something's being lost in translation here.

"I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening" = I'm happy for you to make statements about X being ethically wrong/justified (i.e. "This seems true, so how do I FEEL about this?")

I happen to take a rather amoral stance on matters so detached from me personally, so I'm in a good position to see both ethical sides without favouring a particular one. This has nothing to do with what is ACTUALLY true. If you have trouble considering things of less-than-assured validity, and have to group things into 'definitely true' and 'certainly false' before continuing, then you're going to have trouble making any realistic judgements about anything.

"These people already want regime change and the US (for example) picks it's friends by who their enemies are."

This is realistic. People don't tend to change their world views so drastically from what they've come to believe over many years, so the west isn't going to have much luck persuading people who are happy with their leadership to go revolutionary on thier asses.

What is also realistic, and which I would agree with, is that people living under genuinely horrible regimes of oppression and corruption have lived all thier lives under a certain world view that was given to them by the opressors. This is a much more likely form of programming and it doesn't happen quickly and it tends to follow simple rules. You can't tell a population they are happy when they're not, but you can tell them they are in danger when they are afraid.

Now to do the correct thing and apply the same logic to myself, it might seem that I could very well have been brought up in such an environment. I do believe, though, that because I am not scared of my government and only trust it to further itself (the idea that it cares about me is at best a mild hope) I think my case is less than comparable. Same with your's and Mr. Meyssan's situation. You are perfectly free to say outrageous things without fear of reprisal from the government and have quite a lot of access to information. You're in a great position to gain views that don't necessarily gel with what your government would prefer and happen to have taken that to an extreme that I wouldn't call fair.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on July 19, 2011, 05:19:56 pm
garion 1st post:

that's what i was saying, in a circumspect sort of way.  aside from the colonisation bit.  these nations are in their current predicament because of the very reasons you list for colonisation.  military occupation is not quite the same thing, as i'm sure anyone who has been to an "occupied" nation will tell you.

i understand that money is a path to power.  this is why i brought up lobbying.

"almost always" and "the last 60 years" are worlds apart.  in addition i'd say at least the last hundred years in the US.  the roots go a little farther back, to the events leading up to the american civil war.  yes, my government has been quite the cesspool of corruption for a few generations.  this is not because it is inherently that way, only that it has been twisted into this.  voting has been moving more and more away from choosing the best man for the job, and more and more into rooting for your favourite "team".

yes, i do know why gold is so expensive.  this is why i was talking about it, and how the workers who produce it make a pittance.  if those workers controlled this resource, they would make far more.  consider how much a mineworker makes in a developed nation.  here, a coal miner makes between $28,000-$68,000 a year.  compare that to the (maybe) $5000 a gold miner can expect in most places in south america.  we also provide benefits, have unions, and many other such "modern" conveniences, while the south american gold miner can barely feed himself, let alone his family, and has many health problems due to exposure to harsh and unregulated chemicals used to extract the ore from the rock.  granted, coal mining in the US and gold mining in the andes are two completely different processes, but i hope you see where i'm going.

nux:

a much more reasonable standpoint than many people i know, from many nations.  if only the general public were as discerning.

garion, 2nd post:

we must always question the morality of our governments, and the decisions they make, especially when involving the use of force.  it is the responsibility of every citizen to do so.  yes, we must also have the truth of any actions taken by the government as well.  is it impossible to do both?

who do you listen to?  the large crowd of people saying one thing, or the few who claim the opposite?  what are the most readily available "sources of information" (and i do use that term lightly), if not the 9 o'clock news and the morning paper... both mainstream news outlets.  when talking to people who have not been exposed to the truth of things (and until you have a conversation like this, you never know who has been) you usually cannot tell them "everything you know is a lie, this is how it really is".  people tend to get hostile when confronted with things "that cant possibly be true".  yes, it's true that this is important, and people need to talk about it and know the truth.  you just dont have to shatter someone's worldview in one fell stroke to do it.

on the subject of Thierry Meyssan.  couldent his trip to lybia be a PR stunt?  much like, i dunno, geraldo did?  reporters report, and everyone knows that a good reporter is "on the scene"*.  which begs the question, why would a reporter cut himself off from all contact?

again, i am not saying that this man is a liar or is reporting anything that is not true, only that he is doing so in a sensationalist manner, that is surely making him a bunch of money.  again, for an extreme example of this, see alex jones.  i love ole' AJ, sensationalist that he is.  it's not hard to tell the difference between his bullshit he does for ratings, and the really important shit.

* sorry to steal your footnote format, but i'd like to interject here that i find the shifting of the news away from reporting the facts to giving you an opinion of the facts to be disgusting.  i do not need some douchebag with a hairpiece and a plastic chin "on the scene" describing it to me and providing his thoughts.  i am a grown man and am more than capable of forming my own opinions, presented with facts.  unfortunately, facts do not get ratings, so we have commentators, rather than reporters nowadays.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 06:28:25 pm
I will answer you by using these quotes "" to quote your messages :

""I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening" = I'm happy for you to make statements about X being ethically wrong/justified (i.e. "This seems true, so how do I FEEL about this?")"

That is what I said. Which means, your intellect only applies itself to the judgment's field, not to the research of truth's field. Therefore, you take the official version that you think seems true, and you judge the ethics of the 2 sides without considering if the elements composing the story are true. Any fake story (read: the mainstream occidental media's story) that would make the United-States act for humanitarian reasons would obviously make you believe it's ethically good. This, you're almost sure to be fooled. And even if you have some minor objections considering the story, you still believe most elements, and with such a system of expert, counter-expert, politicians and the medias, it is almost sure that whatever ethical position you take relatively to the mainstream media's story will be good for the interests of those manipulating the informations, as they need the support of the occidental populations to achieve their plans of conquering Africa. This is of course in the logic of mondialism (not mondialisation), that our elites are trying to bring (they're saying it themselves now)*.

*So it's not a plotting theory, as many elites don't hide their will for mondialism anymore.

One more thing, I might repeat myself a bit too: outrageous assumptions aren't outrageous, they only seem outrageous because you're starting your view point from a particular story. You consider the mainstream media's story as the most credible one (You said : "We're talking about "You don't like that guy and neither do we. So we'll help you out and you can have all the glory!"), which is why you talk about judging it ethically, because you're not searching for the veracity of the elements composing the story. It is as if anything that was outside the mainstream media's version was from silly to outrageous. Your sentence is exactly the kind of position that legitimates the actions in Libya by the Allies (we might as well cross these "l". This vision also makes you believe the Libyans wanted a change, which makes you agree on so many more theories afterwards. The proof that everything for you is in the field of ethic, and not in the field of truth is that you said what I was saying was outrageous. Outrageous means it's either immoral or unreasonable what I'm saying, but you did not reach reason as you did not listen to every sides, but simply embraced one side and looked a little, with a cold sight, at the other side. Reason would tell you this is biased as you are not considering the elements seriously. The reason I know it is because Qaddafi was accused of being a bloody dictator who murdered his population, but the NATO realized it wasn't true, so there's no reason for their military intervention. The only things that justifies the NATO's intervention is because they wish a step in Africa for bigger projects, and because Qaddafi needed to be replaced by a new clown. Finally, I'm not saying the Libyans were the happiest people ever, but we're clearly not assisting to what the mainstream occidental media's are telling us, i.e. a rebellion which passed to a civil war and what not...


I'll answer Rak in my next post
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 06:42:54 pm
@Rak : Questioning the morality of our government is a thing, believing what they're saying and discrediting the rest because it's not in accordance with the living god (the government's chief) is just unreasonable and unethical in my opinion. I'd like to say that I don't listen to a large group of people or a smaller group of people when I have to take my decision, I try to stay away from the philosophies of the number. I will not argue on Thierry Meyssan's credibility anymore, as I know it will serve nothing. He is diabolized by the mainstream medias of France, so the only thing I can tell you is to look at his work if you wish to see if he's credible or not, as arguing with you on this would be a pure waste of time. You're a grown up man, you said it yourself, you don't need me for your opinion making.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on July 19, 2011, 07:30:22 pm
i'm not arguing with you, garion...i agree with you.  what i've been getting at, is that most people will look for any hint of "sensationalism" in a source that does not agree with what they've been told all of their life.  if any trace of sensationalism is found, a good number of people will disregard anything you have to say as a kookey conspiracy theory.  this is why i cite the direct source of the information, rather than the journalist that brought it to my attention.

Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 08:14:40 pm
I know we agree on a good part of what I'm saying, Rak. Now, as for Thierry Meyssan, he is his own source*. You can visit his website if you please, there's the english version of it : http://www.voltairenet.org/en

*I told you he went on the terrain, not only on the scene. The difference with the scene and the terrain can be measured by the large amount of danger you face, especially in a place like Libya these days, and especially when you bring a speech that is true to some extent and goes against a great power of this world.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on July 19, 2011, 09:02:28 pm
You seem to have trouble understanding me and it's making it hard to discuss this with you.

I am NOT only concerned with morals. In fact I quite clearly stated that my stance is AMORAL (without moral). Not having a particular vested interest in justifying a particular party's actions means I'm happy for people to say this and that is right and wrong, all the while I agree with all of it and none of it because I am well aware that it's a subjective issue with no clear-cut answer.

The veracity of claims is what I am primarily concerned with. In previous threads I've talked to you about the nature of proof. I've said how there are many things that we rely on second-hand sources for information about. It's not always possible to get direct proof so it becomes a matter of discerning credible sources from non-credible sources using our experience to guide us. This is all I am doing and this is all you are doing. Of course, I think my judgement is better and that's because, given the choice, I don't pick the more extreme option because it COULD happen, I picks the more average option because it's MORE LIKELY to happen.

Disclaimer: I'm vastly simplifying my views on this, because being more exact doesn't seem to be getting me understood.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on July 19, 2011, 09:58:38 pm
"I am NOT only concerned with morals. In fact I quite clearly stated that my stance is AMORAL (without moral)."

It doesn't matter if you adopt a moral position or not, what I'm saying is that it is the only field into which your mind can still express something or see a veriety of ideas, as you've already accepted a truth, therefore a ground on which these morals or thoughts are building on. Even if you don't take a side in the moralism, you still take a side on which story is true, therefore you're not verifying anything, which means it's not serious. Many of what has been claimed in the videos can be verified from your home, you can also look at a bunch of the victims from NATO in Libya. Also, there's something really great to find out what is true and it's called reality checking, and if you can't do that you need to refer to credible and honest experts. Anyway, to say what you've said and to answer you on it, I think my judgment is better because I'm not basing my reason on what seems extreme to me and what seems average, I'm basing it on the best of my knowledge, which is why my trust into what I contributed you isn't weak and unreasonable. All this question of "extreme" and "average" is really funny, wasn't it extreme when the mainstream media said Qaddafi was giving viagra to his soldiers, without having much proofs? Wasn't it extreme when the same medias said that he was a bloody dictator? Isn't it funny how the supposedly 6000 deaths Qaddafi made were proven to be falsified, proven by the NATO? And now who's killing people, if it's not the NATO? There are videos and images of this all over the net. The members of the Qaddafi's family are being murdered by missiles, which is absolutely illegal, and more and more people in Libya are joining Qaddafi's flag, as  they're realizing the rebels aren't exactly rebels, and that Qaddafi did not do the crimes it was said he did.

Thierry Meyssan said something really important that could happen in the future, if the situation doesn't change drastically on Libya, it is that they will divide Libya in two blocs, Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, and that the forces of Union will separate the two regions because of potential conflict. The excuse behind this will be that they're trying to protect the civils from the civil war*.

*In the video, Thierry Meyssan said some media started talking about a civil war instead of a rebellion, in order to prepare the opinion of the occidental masses.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on July 19, 2011, 10:55:57 pm
Extreme views like "manipulating the informations, as they need the support of the occidental populations to achieve their plans of conquering Africa." or thinking that the gaddafi family has done nothing wrong and isn't trying to hold onto power using brutal force, but instead the west is making it look like they are having a civil war and that the only violence is being caused by NATO despite all of the statements from rebel forces and thier asking for air support and that no foriegn troops be deployed.

I have to admit, I do place a lot of trust in the what the bbc reports. This is because they're good at sticking to facts (for the most part) and have a long history of reporting inconvenient truthes for the government, police, other news agencies, itself etc. I'm rather proud of our bbc when I see the inane reports you get over on fox news in America and elsewhere that have mini discussions between 2 or 3 people all agreeing with each other about some particular opinion. Only Al Jazeera seems to match the bbc in quality, though many American agencies seem to consider it akin to some terrorist group.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on July 20, 2011, 05:13:41 am
he is his own source
when i say the source, i am referring to something like official documentation, or perhaps a peer-reviewed academia publication, depending on the subject matter.

yes, such documents may be brought to my attention by a journalist.  when talking about the subject to others, however, i try to let them read the actual source, that the reporter based his report on, so that they may form their own opinions.  in this way, they get the facts, and can not disregard the source because they object to the presentation of the facts.

i've had a lot of practise over the years arguing subjects like this.  i've found this method of debate to be the most effective.  just trying to offer some friendly advice, really.

i will say i am impressed with the number of people i've talked with through tremulous that have a good handle of what's going on in the world.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: baybal on July 24, 2011, 09:36:09 am
Yes, there is a long credible history of, for instance, America employing covert operations in order to overthrow regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions). As I understand it, this has always been a case of helping people who were already in these nations already opposing these regimes. In some cases, it would be a small group of people who would be aided in a Coup d'état. In other cases it would be large portions of the population already engaged in civil war. So the puppeteering is something much more realistic than the crack-pot theories would prefer.
These people already want regime change and the US (for example) picks it's friends by who their enemies are. We're NOT talking here about huge numbers of population being brainwashed to hate thier government. We're talking about "You don't like that guy and neither do we. So we'll help you out and you can have all the glory!".

I don't mind people questioning the morality of what is likely happening. I get annoyed by people who make outrageous assumptions.
One barrel of ammonal will solve your problems
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Plague Bringer on July 25, 2011, 06:19:24 pm
Fuckin' ayyy-rabs.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: your face on July 25, 2011, 08:55:19 pm
the islams are rampant
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: vcxzet on July 25, 2011, 09:52:44 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/3VvPB.jpg)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on August 26, 2011, 10:45:08 pm
I have to admit, I do place a lot of trust in the what the bbc reports.

I knew time would tell I was right. And time decided to talk. You're proud of the reports of BBC? Maybe you shouldn't give your pride so fast to those who wear clean clothes : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no26yCzHm7g

For those wondering what it is, it's the BBC's employees talking about the rebels being in green square (it's in the middle of Tripoli), as if they'd conquered it. They are showing a bunch of men from the rebels celebrating their victory, who are waving flags and they are saying these guys are in the green square of Tripoli. In fact, if you look at the flags being waved, they are India's flags, so it is fair to assume that it's not a scene from Libya. Plus, the NTC's chief said himself it was just a strategy of the medias to confuse those who follow Kadhafi*. The objectives of this war the NATO is making to Libya seems clear to me, especially after all I've read on the subject : the Zionist-Protestants banking Empire is trying to take control of most middle-east, and they will take this control by imposing their money to everyone in order to dominate with economic weapons, setting military installations, setting leaders that will do what they are told (which might not work) and they are also stealing the gold and other ressources. Gold being really important, especially considering at which step the Empire is in it's march for world domination. If you still doubt about NWO, you are late, because it's been said by many elites of this world that the NWO is the goal and that it's coming.

* I'd like to remind people that the only crime (a crime that isn't one) Kadhafi made, was trying to create a gold-Dinar for Africa. In other words, he did not do what the Zionist-Protestants banking Empire wanted them to do : exchange petrol for American dollars and accepting American dollars in general.   
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on August 26, 2011, 11:36:18 pm
Lulz. Yes, that clearly is a mistake. A mistake mind you, not a deception. Clearly, a breakdown in communication has caused footage which was actually on the Delhi Protests (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14540430) has been mistaken for footage of Tripoli.

Why would you think this was on purpose? Surely, if they're going to lie there are better ways to do it than showing footage of clearly the wrong flag. If they knew where the footage actually came from they would know the flag would give them away.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on August 26, 2011, 11:51:10 pm
Why would you think this was on purpose?

Plus, the NTC's chief said himself it was just a strategy of the medias to confuse those who follow Kadhafi*. 

I'd like to add that they've also made other videos of manifestants, except it was fake once again. They did it in a studio that looked like Tripoli. Simply, adding new videos that can light up the fire more, in times where things are moving fast, is good for propaganda. Even if these videos are found to be false, it doesn't matter. You know why? Because some candid people think it was a simple mistake.

Yes, that clearly is a mistake.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on August 26, 2011, 11:56:29 pm
Also, since vcxvzet bring a picture of ABB, a humorist picture, sadly not so realist. This comes closer to reality in my opinion (tho, most of the characters should have curved nose, if you see what I mean) :

 (http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/150/1312220667220.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/1312220667220.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on August 27, 2011, 04:56:21 am
Lulz. Yes, that clearly is a mistake. A mistake mind you, not a deception. Clearly, a breakdown in communication has caused footage which was actually on the Delhi Protests (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14540430) has been mistaken for footage of Tripoli.

Why would you think this was on purpose? Surely, if they're going to lie there are better ways to do it than showing footage of clearly the wrong flag. If they knew where the footage actually came from they would know the flag would give them away.

then again, BBC reported building 10 i think it was of the world trade center falling when it was clearly visible in the background.

to top it off, at least half of americans polled could not find iraq on a map.  i dont imagine the UK would be much better off.

sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.

i take international news with a grain of salt.  unlike domestic news, it has to pass through two layers of propaganda.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on August 29, 2011, 01:55:48 pm
I would say if the news has any bias, it's toward only reporting what is shocking and underrepresenting that which is expected. Maybe the sensationalism of the media has influenced you more than you might wish to believe and this is why you more readily believe the big lie than the small mistake.

I've watched BBC news reports on the widespread corruption, criminality and fraud in the police and the press (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11195407), the government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm), in sport (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1846827.stm) to list a few examples. I don't think our soldiers or these rebels are heroes. I don't believe democracy is perfect. I assimilate facts that fit with other facts I've assimilated already, just like we all do.

The BBC doesn't try to give propoganda, it's words are neutral as they should be. Whether you choose to take meaning from what they report is on your part. If anything, it's the lack of a leading voice in this country that will probably steer it toward one. That's the point you better hope that voice has your best interest in mind, or else make your own voice heard.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on August 29, 2011, 03:27:22 pm
Lulz. Yes, that clearly is a mistake. A mistake mind you, not a deception. Clearly, a breakdown in communication has caused footage which was actually on the Delhi Protests (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14540430) has been mistaken for footage of Tripoli.

Why would you think this was on purpose? Surely, if they're going to lie there are better ways to do it than showing footage of clearly the wrong flag. If they knew where the footage actually came from they would know the flag would give them away.

then again, BBC reported building 10 i think it was of the world trade center falling when it was clearly visible in the background.
I imagine they reported that at a time when they had loads of time for fact checking and there was nothing troubling and fast moving going on in the world.
to top it off, at least half of americans polled could not find iraq on a map.  i dont imagine the UK would be much better off.
It's the one labelled Iraq, though tbh, with british literacy rates what they are, that may not help much.
sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.
You do realise that this is bloody BBC Breakfast news, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that such a cock-up would occur there, not exactly serious business(as make obvious by Bill Turnbull's presence on the news sofa(sofa's are fast replacing newsdesks as seating places for serious news, i hear)).
i take international news with a grain of salt.  unlike domestic news, it has to pass through two layers of propaganda.
I take it FOX news is trustworthy domestic news? Why do you trust US news agencies when you're convinced that they're controlled by the government(in the past the government's been controlled by newscorp here, rather than the other way around) and that both parties are lying to you, wouldn't foreign news seem potentially more trustworthy in those circumstances?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfNYFlbr3_4
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on August 30, 2011, 12:28:57 am
Lulz. Yes, that clearly is a mistake. A mistake mind you, not a deception. Clearly, a breakdown in communication has caused footage which was actually on the Delhi Protests (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14540430) has been mistaken for footage of Tripoli.

Why would you think this was on purpose? Surely, if they're going to lie there are better ways to do it than showing footage of clearly the wrong flag. If they knew where the footage actually came from they would know the flag would give them away.

then again, BBC reported building 10 i think it was of the world trade center falling when it was clearly visible in the background.
I imagine they reported that at a time when they had loads of time for fact checking and there was nothing troubling and fast moving going on in the world.
to top it off, at least half of americans polled could not find iraq on a map.  i dont imagine the UK would be much better off.
It's the one labelled Iraq, though tbh, with british literacy rates what they are, that may not help much.
sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.
You do realise that this is bloody BBC Breakfast news, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that such a cock-up would occur there, not exactly serious business(as make obvious by Bill Turnbull's presence on the news sofa(sofa's are fast replacing newsdesks as seating places for serious news, i hear)).
i take international news with a grain of salt.  unlike domestic news, it has to pass through two layers of propaganda.
I take it FOX news is trustworthy domestic news? Why do you trust US news agencies when you're convinced that they're controlled by the government(in the past the government's been controlled by newscorp here, rather than the other way around) and that both parties are lying to you, wouldn't foreign news seem potentially more trustworthy in those circumstances?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfNYFlbr3_4
the man reading the card with his lines on them had but look behind him to see he was giving a false report.  he had the standard issue "newsman's earpiece", a producer could have quickly corrected him.  this was the third and final building to fall that day. 

i'm assuming "finding on a map" precludes the use of labels.  hardly a test of geographical knowledge if it's open book, right?

the morning news?  not a report on the scene of breaking news?  so they had time to fix so glaring a mistake?  or perhaps, like before, they are playing off of the audience's ignorance?  hoping to slip it past folks while they are still waking up?  there are many reasons to lie to the general western public about what's going on in lybia.  i mean, they've been lying to us about lybia since at least the late 70's.  both your news agencies and government and mine.

fox news is not a news outlet, but entertainment.  like the weekly world news, or the sun.  it is a video tabloid offering mountains of opinion for each grain of truth.  i dont trust ANY news agency anywhere, really.  i know where they get their stories.  AP and routers.  i know who owns those "news services".

i also know the best lies have a kernal of truth to them.  i'm familliar with the language used to hide things in news reports... the language of the politically correct.  i had to learn it myself to use it in reports i would file when i was in the military.  i know the reality behind the phrase "neutralized 4 soft targets" and "four soldiers were wounded by an IED".

and so i read any report that comes to me with a grain of salt.  i consider the source.  i think about who profits from the report. 

nux..... you are incredibly naive if you believe the bbc does not deal in propaganda.  there is no single mass-media outlet on the planet that does not truck with one form of propaganda or another.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on August 30, 2011, 02:00:40 am
It's "Libya".

I don't think you've actually watched much news from the BBC. I think you've based your opinions of it off a couple of mistakes that were weeded out by someone trying to validate thier point of view. Don't get me wrong, the BBC makes mistakes and deals a fair bit of sensationalism in some annoying ways (particularly the journalists in charge of the BBC News website). I just think it's rather silly that you think they're giving out these big lies to aid our government when they always leap at the nearest chance to defame it, or even itself.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on August 30, 2011, 03:37:03 am
It's "Libya".

I don't think you've actually watched much news from the BBC. I think you've based your opinions of it off a couple of mistakes that were weeded out by someone trying to validate thier point of view. Don't get me wrong, the BBC makes mistakes and deals a fair bit of sensationalism in some annoying ways (particularly the journalists in charge of the BBC News website). I just think it's rather silly that you think they're giving out these big lies to aid our government when they always leap at the nearest chance to defame it, or even itself.
your assessment is wrong nux.  i've seen my fair share of bbc news broadcasts.  in particular, the asian bbc department and AFN (the armed forces network, a militarily run "channel") were my only links to the outside world for a couple of years.

dont you see? the bbc leaping to defraud the government is a form of propaganda.  just like a human body, a political body sometimes develops cancerous growths that attack the body.  when some big scandal rears about, everyone is quick to lay the blame on the doorstep of traditional enemies and pet crusades.  think about how often some official or another leaks information as a source who "must remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak on the matter", or something similar?

Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on August 30, 2011, 10:42:38 am
I'm aware that media outlets can vend propoganda. It can even be a psuedo-voluntary thing where people don't care so long as they hear what they want to hear. I'm aware that some things can only become news when they're out already anyway (The News of the World has given us an example of that recently). Please bear in mind that you don't have to explain to me how, generally, lies can become public information. I've read my fair share of history.

The matter at hand is whether the BBC is dealing in lies for the benefit of the government. To decide upon this, we first need to clear up a few problematic areas.

Firstly, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It is quite possible that entire branches of the BBC are markedly distinct and that we're both basing our views of a global organisation on small parts of it. Ideally that wouldn't be an issue and proper management would turn it all into a united whole, but I fully expect that some parts of it would fail to demonstrate the qualities of others, not least because they are broadcasting to different peoples with different ideals. For this first point, I suggest we acknowledge that we may have gained different views of the organisation, but so long as we are talking about the organisation as a whole, any part of it failing to meet our standards is a failing on the part of the whole.

Secondly, we need to know what determines a lie. Do we mean spouting anything as truth which in fact is not? I pressume we mean intentional deception. We need to establish how subtle a lie has to be before it stops being a lie. For this I would advise that we default to 'Hanlon's razor':

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

"Adequately" being the operative word. We shouldn't, as you fear I am doing, just attribute everything to accident. Yet if it get's to the point where the person might as well be an idiot, then to all intents and purposes surely they ARE an idiot and NOT a mastermind. If I'm shooting myself in the foot by doing this and playing into their highly subtle plot, then I'm happy for them to continue plotting so subtley because until they plot any harder, no sane person should notice the difference. If things do change, but slowly, we have the benefit of hindsight (history books) to know exactly when that happens, no matter how slowly it comes about.

Do we agree on this much?
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on August 30, 2011, 12:42:44 pm
When we've got one party accusing the other of naivety whilst displaying considerable paranoia and providing precious little evidence of the conspiracy they feel is in place, it's awfully tricky to have a sensible discussion.

If I'm shooting myself in the foot by doing this and playing into their highly subtle plot, then I'm happy for them to continue plotting so subtley because until they plot any harder, no sane person should notice the difference.
Quite.

Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on August 30, 2011, 11:15:16 pm
nux, it is not always a government or even government agency that pushes propaganda from major "news outlets".

tell the truth, i think that's actually kind of rare.  again i point out that almost every news story in every major "publication" (also counting broadcast news and their internet mirrors) almost exclusively draws their stories from AP and routers.  i do not trust these entities because of their owners.

call me paranoid if you like, but i understand military propaganda operations.  i've read the field manual on the subject after all.  it is impossible to miss the tactics and techniques described in the manual being used by civilian news agencies today.  call me conservative, but i tend to plan for the worst.

what is a lie?  it is the absence of truth.  this absence can be from omission, from twisting of the fact, all manner of things.  a definition is an unforgiving thing.  say i tell you i'll meet you at 6pm at central square.  i dont make the appointment but then tell you something came up.  no matter what excuse i give, my original statement "i will meet with you at 6pm in central square" is a lie.  despite any intentions of mine to make it there, despite best efforts, despite how much i may have wanted to go.  none of it changes, my original statement was a lie.

that's a little peripheral, though.

if the newsmen are idiots, that does not change a thing.  either by maliciousness or idiocy, they bring the same reaction from me.  i do not trust them.

tremulant, i've said nothing of conspiracy.  i have been speaking of propaganda.  propaganda requires no conspiracy.  i do not believe there is some shadowy organization pulling the strings on the world stage.  i think that the rich and powerful expend economic and political capitol for their own purposes, their own benefit. 

it's also hard to have a sensible discussion when your position gets you dismissed as a "kook" out of hand.

seriously, i have no idea why my lack of trust in the bbc, and suspicion of ulterior motives seems to have precluded sensible discussion on the matter.  naivety is no insult, it just expresses a lack of "worldlyness", much the same way that "ignorant" denotes being uninformed, rather than the lack of the capacity to learn.

but please, dont let me change your opinion of the bbc.  i doubt i could change the opinions of both of you anyway, i'm not wearing a suit on tv, i am only your peer, i cannot have anything of import to say.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on August 31, 2011, 12:07:57 am
I do not implicitly trust the ramblings of well dressed individuals on rolling news channels, be they BBC operated or otherwise(to be honest, i think i tend to prefer Channel4 when it comes to TV news, but my overall preference is for Radio(4)), i just don't tend to look for propaganda where i see obvious mistakes, especially when i have trouble perceiving the value of those "mistakes" as propaganda.

Apologies if you found my suggestion that you may believe there are conspiracies underlying the generation of propaganda in news agencies offensive, I just happen to find the idea of misinformation flowing out of the BBC without anyone blowing the whistle to be a little conspiratorial to begin with.

Do feel free to explain why it makes more sense for the 911 report(i assumed, incorrectly, that you felt there was a conspiracy at work here) and Tripoli/Delhi footage mix-up incident to be deliberate misinformation than simple mistakes, i'm perfectly willing to listen when reasonable evidence is put forward, just don't expect leaps of faith.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on August 31, 2011, 04:10:32 am
i'm not wearing a suit on tv, i am only your peer, i cannot have anything of import to say.

I hope you didn't JUST learn that. On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..). A lot of their videos can be found on youtube.

Here's a really good video about the presstitutes (also talks about other important things) : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Gerald-Celente-la-maison-des-presstitutes-7923.html

Maybe you'll like it, RAK.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on August 31, 2011, 09:57:58 am
Do feel free to explain why it makes more sense for the 911 report(i assumed, incorrectly, that you felt there was a conspiracy at work here) and Tripoli/Delhi footage mix-up incident to be deliberate misinformation than simple mistakes, i'm perfectly willing to listen when reasonable evidence is put forward, just don't expect leaps of faith.

^That. I'm sorry if I pressumed you were talking about the government, but I am quite intrigued as to who else you could have been talking about protecting itself by fooling the masses.

dont you see? the bbc leaping to defraud[defame] the government is a form of propaganda.  just like a human body, a political body sometimes develops cancerous growths that attack the body.  when some big scandal rears about, everyone is quick to lay the blame on the doorstep of traditional enemies and pet crusades.  think about how often some official or another leaks information as a source who "must remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak on the matter", or something similar?

And of course intention matters. The trouble comes from not knowing what was intended, and if you're pressuming it was all planned then that causes even more trouble.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on August 31, 2011, 01:19:06 pm
*snip*
On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..).
On a more serious note, really? I've watched RT a fair bit and immediately assumed you were back in your capacity as resident troll, yes it's interesting, but honest? If any news network can be accused of peddling government propaganda it's RT.
RT are currently suggesting that young boys in libya have suddenly become fascinated with toy guns(because everyone knows that children don't like toy guns unless exposed to armed uprisings), which is almost certainly NATO's fault, there's footage of kids playing with toy guns and everything, what's more, NATO aren't pulling out immediately, evil NATO, think of the children!
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on August 31, 2011, 03:20:13 pm
*snip*
On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..).
On a more serious note, really? I've watched RT a fair bit and immediately assumed you were back in your capacity as resident troll, yes it's interesting, but honest? If any news network can be accused of peddling government propaganda it's RT.
RT are currently suggesting that young boys in libya have suddenly become fascinated with toy guns(because everyone knows that children don't like toy guns unless exposed to armed uprisings), which is almost certainly NATO's fault, there's footage of kids playing with toy guns and everything, what's more, NATO aren't pulling out immediately, evil NATO, think of the children!

I don't care if you call me a troll, but atleast don't come up with a poor understanding of the situation. As a matter of fact, I'm not saying I give value to everything in RT, I'm saying they actually give a good portrait of what's happening. Also, I didn't see the report you're telling me, but I do believe that if kids from a country develop a FASCINATION (that's a pretty important word) for toy guns, probably for what these toys represent, and that this fascination came just as their country was being attacked, then there's an obvious link. I don't see what's wrong with saying that a war (that makes less and less sense if we check the reasons for it, and the veracity of these reasons) has changed the mind of kids. RT are reporting something interesting for those willing to understand the situation, it's another coherent part of the situation of today's Libya.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: janev on September 05, 2011, 06:57:26 pm
Quote
On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..). A lot of their videos can be found on youtube.
Quote
I'm not saying I give value to everything in RT, I'm saying they actually give a good portrait of what's happening.

RT is no more unbiased than any other source. What it lacks in western bias it makes up in Russian bias. The name itself says it all, Russian Times, you know as in Russian. If you think that is honest and accurate you are being naive. Russia is a cesspool of corruption. You might not be able to smell it from way over there on the other side of the pond. What money will buy in the west, money and brute force will buy in the east. The last 5 stories on RT include something about German Nazis, a Russian parade showing off how awesome they are and video about Russia not approving of the West taking all the Arab oil.  ::)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on September 06, 2011, 03:09:41 am


sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.


i cannot give you the reasons behind it, but this is why i do not believe it to be a mistake.  perhaps both my local paper and news station have more journalistic integrity than the BBC and they correct and acknowledge such mistakes by the time of the next printing or broadcast, if not immediately in the case of broadcast footage.

i do not claim to know why such mistakes are made, if indeed they are mistakes.  i just say that it sounds fishy.  either they are depending on the ignorance of their audience to mask mistakes, or are trying to skew popular opinion by distributing misleading images... again counting on ignorance to aid the effort.

again i point out, as was pointed out to me, the BBC is one of the largest news outlets in the world.  i would assume as such it would use considerable resources to prevent such mistakes from happening.  erroneous reporting erodes the audience's faith in the source, eventually costing ratings.  this will lead to the death of the news source.  the only thing that i know of that would cause a corporation to risk it's "death" is the promise of very large short-term gain.

there's a little lesson in life that has aided my survival many times over the years.  it is simple - "plan for the worst".  if indeed it was just a simple mistake, then fine, i've been worrying over nothing.  fact of the matter is, it seems more to me that some agency paid off the bbc to broadcast a misleading mistake.

recently, i've been reading about how libya is a different sort of rebellion that what has been the case recently in that part of the world.  i cant find the article at the moment, but it was something to the effect that libya's rebellion was made up of the people who happen to be "enemies of the west" rather than the friendly doctors and lawyers that overthrew the government of egypt, for example.  showing a band of these friendly rebels celebrating victory makes a much more lasting impression than roving gangs of thugs attempting to remove the puppet we put into power in the first place.  that's my take on it anyway.


I hope you didn't JUST learn that.

no, i usually just keep it under my hat, though.  sometimes it does get irritating that i seemingly am dismissed because i am not a talking head on a news-opinion show.  i try to be a bit more rational and skeptical compared to the majority of people i come into contact with who hold the same opinions on world events that i do.  i find that you'll never change anyone's mind if you browbeat them about how ignorant they are, or destroy all of their worldview all at once.  much like an international banker, i find it better to work incrementally at changing the opinions of those around me.

also, about alex jones:  look up his connections to zionists.  recently i've discovered a lot about AJ, he's a knight of malta, apparently.  and owned by ABC.  gerald celente seems to be an allright guy, but then again, he's also a bit too eager to profit from the whole situation.

then again, AJ does bring up some good news to "public" attention, you've just got to learn how to filter out all of his opinion he spins onto the stories.  on the other hand, you can say that about most news outlet, save the ones that specialize in "entertainment news" like which celebrity ate what for which meal.  there's almost always a kernel of truth buried amid all that opinion and spin, and usually hidden in legalese or politically correct language.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 06, 2011, 03:13:38 am
RT is no more unbiased than any other source.

First of all, it is obvious that you're being inaccurate, as it is just stupid to say all of the medias are on the same level. Second of all, RT gives interview to people who talk about reality, and they usually talk at a good level of thoughts, compared to most western medias, so don't talk about RT as it was closed on the views of those inside. RT is much better for you to listen to, if you wish to understand what's going on right now, than most western medias, if not all.

Also, because I know you'll make the error (you don't have a strong grasp on logic) : it doesn't mean RT is the perfect media, it doesn't mean they're always right and free of corruption. It's just more honest and better on most important points than many medias around here.

What it lacks in western bias it makes up in Russian bias. The name itself says it all, Russian Times, you know as in Russian. If you think that is honest and accurate you are being naive.

This one made me laugh. Again, you're being naive. First of all, you're basically saying the Occident oligarchs have the same interest as RT for giving the right information about what's happening in Libya, which isn't true. Occident oligarchs are better to lie on the subject of Libya and on economy, while RT is giving the opportunity to people who aren't given the right to talk in the medias of our free society, because these persons have been fighting the Empire (Yep kid, the word is launched).  I also hope you don't base your view on RT simply because it's Russian, that'd be a terrible way of reasoning. You know, it's not because American's politics are totally corrupted and soulless that every Americans are. I'd like to add that I was suggesting RT for their reports on the events of Libya and on the economical questions. Finally, I don't think you know a lot about RT, because it's Russia Today, not Russia Times. It is you who isn't accurate and naive, or maybe you're not being honest.[/quote]


Russia is a cesspool of corruption. You might not be able to smell it from way over there on the other side of the pond. What money will buy in the west, money and brute force will buy in the east.
At this point you have lost all credibility on the field, but I'll still answer you just for the kick of it. First of all, I'm happy to see you took your course of Russia's society and politics in Rocky. This silly idea that in the United-States, country of the nobles, the only form of corruption is money, while in Russia, necessarily, corruption HAS to be worse! It is money and brute force, them barbarians! No, really, simply saying that RT is more corrupted and more manipulated right now than most western medias is stupid. As I said, RT are giving the opportunity to people who have alarmed many people of what was going on, they have kept a certain integrity with reality, that is the least I can give them, and they probably deserve more.[/quote]
 

The last 5 stories on RT include something about German Nazis, a Russian parade showing off how awesome they are and video about Russia not approving of the West taking all the Arab oil.  ::)

::)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 06, 2011, 03:42:37 am



I hope you didn't JUST learn that.

no, i usually just keep it under my hat, though.  sometimes it does get irritating that i seemingly am dismissed because i am not a talking head on a news-opinion show.  i try to be a bit more rational and skeptical compared to the majority of people i come into contact with who hold the same opinions on world events that i do.  i find that you'll never change anyone's mind if you browbeat them about how ignorant they are, or destroy all of their worldview all at once.  much like an international banker, i find it better to work incrementally at changing the opinions of those around me.

also, about alex jones:  look up his connections to zionists.  recently i've discovered a lot about AJ, he's a knight of malta, apparently.  and owned by ABC.  gerald celente seems to be an allright guy, but then again, he's also a bit too eager to profit from the whole situation.

then again, AJ does bring up some good news to "public" attention, you've just got to learn how to filter out all of his opinion he spins onto the stories.  on the other hand, you can say that about most news outlet, save the ones that specialize in "entertainment news" like which celebrity ate what for which meal.  there's almost always a kernel of truth buried amid all that opinion and spin, and usually hidden in legalese or politically correct language.

Personally I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I am bringing what I consider to be true (to some extent) on a public place. And I will add, on the forum of a game that I like and loved. It is a way to give this game a little something, as it gave me a lot. And if it can help a few people around here I'll be glad, just passing the info is a good thing to do in these dark (dark as in it is less and less clear, things are hidden from us, I'm not trying to sound deep*) times.

*for bad mouths

As for what you said on AJ, I agree with you on a couple of things, he brings good stuff but on some subjects he might not always be honest, right or defending the good thing.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on September 06, 2011, 01:49:26 pm
About the BBC mistake, I'll make this clear, because the post I made before seems to have been largely ignored: Do you really think they would attempt to deceive viewers about the state in Libya by running footage of people celebrating FROM A STORY THEY WERE AIRING AT THAT SAME POINT IN TIME (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14540430)?

Until I see some credible evidence of bias in the BBC, I'll continue to view it with the esteem it has so far earned from me.

All the rest of this debate is just conjecture and opinion and I'm afraid I'm tired of reading assertions with zero reasoning given. At least RAKninja-Decepticon seems to put thought into his judgements, despite my disagreeing with his conclusions. It seems like Garion on the other hand just professes who is evil and who is good arbitrarily and expects us to just take his word for it, or the word of one of the few who agree with him.

It's possible to convince someone of something, if you can make it tally with the other facts in their head. It's also possible that the person has collected a load of junk in their head, called them facts and there's no hope of them believing any different.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: janev on September 06, 2011, 03:38:53 pm
So in that wall of text you managed to:
Put up some straw men.
Draw false conclusions about my first hand knowledge of Russia.
Point out a typo.
Totally ignore my valid point about what kind of garbage makes it to RT.
Try to e-Insult me.

Quote
while RT is giving the opportunity to people who aren't given the right to talk
in the medias of our free society.
You are obviously an idiot because everyone has the right to speak in our free society*. Just like everyone else has the right to tune out from the shit they are shoveling.

You are shoveling too much shit for me to stick around. That probably has something to do with the fact your soul is dog shit. Time to move on to more productive pursuits. Thank you Nux, Tremulant and RAK for the thoughtful posts.

*If you had ever been to Russia you would know that is not the case there
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 06, 2011, 04:20:26 pm
Nux, how many times did I tell you that even the NTC leader admitted it was purely made for propaganda? You might aswell continue to enjoy every bits of BBC's reports you can get.

This is Seif al Islam talking : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs

that's just one video out of other videos that show the same thing, and this guy is the son of Gadaffi. There were also some videos of the NTC leader who also said it was just propaganda.

I gave enough reasons on the past topics as to why there would be lies, except you said it was all bullshit. I gave you political reasons, historical reasons, economical reasons, and many more. You just refused everything, I'm not trying to convince anyone and I said it already. Some people, like RAK, have a certain knowledge of what's happening. He's not a zombie, and he understand there's something wrong in this world, plus he probably reads more than Wikipedia's pages. This is why I can communicate with him, because I don't have to explain him why the governments and the medias aren't white knights, or that those holding the economy are bad persons, and that they can easily crush anyone who opposes to their banks. Hell, if you are PROUD of BBC, to me it just means your conscience level is really low. I said it on the other thread, some people aren't in good position to understand what's going on right now. It is possible for me to convince you, except that you're so closed, that it'd take too much effort.

As for Janev, my only hope with you is that you're not too old.

 
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on September 06, 2011, 05:35:33 pm
Nux, how many times did I tell you that even the NTC leader admitted it was purely made for propaganda? You might aswell continue to enjoy every bits of BBC's reports you can get.

This is Seif al Islam talking : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs

that's just one video out of other videos that show the same thing, and this guy is the son of Gadaffi. There were also some videos of the NTC leader who also said it was just propaganda.
Ok, before i give up on the discussion completely, how is any of this related to proof that the BBC's misrepresentation of crowds milling around waving indian flags as footage of the libyan people in tripoli was intentional propaganda rather than a stupid mistake? Can you provide any of these reports from RT's english language service at the very least?

RAK, i realise you must have reasons to believe the things that you do, i'm not going to try and stop you, but do recognise that Garion may not be entirely sincere, it's possible that he's using you as nothing more than a trolling aid, how do you, personally, feel about the trustworthiness of RT and the russian government, i'm curious.

Sorry, what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs#t=4m16s
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Qrntz on September 06, 2011, 06:40:16 pm
Quote
Russia
Quote
honesty
Quote
The events of the ''Arab world''
Those just don't go together. ::)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Nux on September 06, 2011, 06:47:09 pm
This is Seif al Islam talking : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs

Breaking News: A spokesperson for a collapsing government spreads FUD.

It's funny how it was me that you allied with in that previous thread because I was the only one willing to talk to you on a level footing about your claims and give you the benefit of the doubt where I could. Why is it that as soon as someone agrees with you you're their best friend, and soon as they disagree they're a blind fool?

And why are you not trying to convince anyone? Surely, that's the only worthwhile reason you could have for posting here. Even if you don't manage to convince anyone, just trying is enough to organise the facts in your own head better.

I never outright dismissed your claims. I've given alternate explanations to anything that wasn't pure speculation.

Also, don't be so quick to assume people in power will abuse it. Being deceitful is a winning strategy up to the point you get caught by those you are fooling, whereas if you are in a position to be honest and you adhere to the truth there's no such risk, plus reality can only prove you right. I'm not saying people don't still take the risk. For example a collapsing government might lie through it's teeth because it no longer has anything to lose and eveything to gain from it. I'm just saying that honesty is a good strategy too and I have no reason to believe that the BBC doesn't generally follow such an honest philosophy.

Another problem here is that I can ramble about this and pretty much anything for ages but there always comes a point in discussion where I get tired and emotionally detached and I'm trying to keep myself from boring you with that. I think I'll take some time off from this thread again to liven my enthusiasm for it, or else abandon it altogether.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 06, 2011, 10:31:31 pm
Breaking News: A spokesperson for a collapsing government spreads FUD.

Seif al Islam is Gaddafi's son, he's not a simple spokesperson, and he isn't the only source available to tell you the NTC chief lied. My link about the NTC chief was mostly to prove that the western medias just accepted to pass any informations, and I also wanted to show you a form of propaganda. If you remember well, in the first video I posted on this topic, which is found in my first post, Thierry Meyssan (A true journalist who almost got killed by NATO, and who you said, blindly, that he was doing buck sensationalism) said the NATO would try to put in place a National Transition Council in place, which they did. Then, I gave you two more informations, I said the western medias were passing the propaganda, and that this propaganda was also shown on BBC. My own certitude that this is propaganda is because the NTC chief himself affirmed it was. If I didn't give the link of his affirmation, it is because the translation is in french, and because the video seemed to go up and down (for some mysterious reasons). [/quote]

It's funny how it was me that you allied with in that previous thread because I was the only one willing to talk to you on a level footing about your claims and give you the benefit of the doubt where I could. Why is it that as soon as someone agrees with you you're their best friend, and soon as they disagree they're a blind fool?

First of all, I never allied with you on the other thread. I'm not here to do alliances. If I talked to you, it was because you weren't as stupid as Meisseli, Tremulant and Pazuzu (to simply name these three). Also, I don't become best friend with people simply because they're agreeing with me, I just wanted to talk about these events to some persons, this is what I cared for. So if you felt like I was being friendly with you only because I was willing to talk with you and bring you some ideas (that aren't speculation), then you are wrong. But of course, in such individualist societies, I understand that you could come to this conclusion.

And why are you not trying to convince anyone? Surely, that's the only worthwhile reason you could have for posting here. Even if you don't manage to convince anyone, just trying is enough to organise the facts in your own head better.

Don't try to think for me, you'll be wrong on most tryout. As I said, I am not trying to convince anyone, I'm trying to bring interesting informations that I find credible (for more than one reason, mind you). My reason for posting here, as I said, is not to convince anyone, but maybe if some of you remind what has been said here, or the essential, maybe your eyes will open in time. And maybe some of you are already initiates who could make a good use of these infos.

And, to be honest, most of you are fools, and if you can't understand a simple element such as war in Libya, it's obvious that you won't understand the reason truly explain this war, because war in Libya is just a part of a much bigger scheme. Plus, in every posts I made, I had a lot of people who didn't understand even the simple ideas I developed, and sometimes it is because they lack the knowledge of conventional logic. So, am I really going to waste all my time and efforts writing to people who are turned against me, who call me a troll and an idiot? No. Obviously not. I'll say it again, if I am speaking here, it is because I want to talk about the subject, and that if it can help some people from the community of a game I like, why not.

I never outright dismissed your claims. I've given alternate explanations to anything that wasn't pure speculation.

I'm sorry but, what you consider pure speculation might not be pure speculation. You dismissed most of my claims, my explanations and my sources. How am I supposed to explain you something in such conditions? Also, I'm not trying to explain anything, I'm saying things how I know them, I'm not working on your level of thoughts and bringing you up here, nor taking you by the hands, I'm just giving you a glimpse of what it is, for me atleast*.

*and don't start telling me this is just subjective bullshit, I gave you enough explanation, that you rejected, on why I believed it, I've seen people admitting events that were happening in Libya (right now, NATO are only basing their explanations on people's supposed story), I know a good bit of history, enough to understand what world I live in and who is in power, how they hold power, and how those who resist them finish. I know they planned to attack Libya, they've planned every attacks they'd make. Then it will be Syria, they will probably say Bachar Al Assad is a blood dictator, which isn't the case, Iran will come soon enough too. You seem to be ignorant of how information passes in the medias, of who works for who, and who leads this world. If you believe we live in a democracy, and that a democracy for you is the power to the people, then we don't have the same paradigm. I'm not basing myself on my paranoia, I did read books, I did hear many persons talk, persons with important post, persons who were in the heart of the power, persons who predicted things and who explained why it'd happen and how it'd happen, etc, etc..


Also, don't be so quick to assume people in power will abuse it. Being deceitful is a winning strategy up to the point you get caught by those you are fooling, whereas if you are in a position to be honest and you adhere to the truth there's no such risk, plus reality can only prove you right. I'm not saying people don't still take the risk. For example a collapsing government might lie through it's teeth because it no longer has anything to lose and eveything to gain from it. I'm just saying that honesty is a good strategy too and I have no reason to believe that the BBC doesn't generally follow such an honest philosophy.

Now you're talking, the people in power right now have no more choice but to keep on lying. It's their lives that are on the line. If you think saying the truth, in a world where a system of domination has never been so powerful, is safe, then you are wrong. You know why we never see people who are fighting against the system on television? If you don't, ask yourself : who controls television? Also, Gaddafi was resisting to this banking empire, which is why they crushed him. They made him pass for the devil to the eyes of anyone, just as they did before, just as they will do.


Another problem here is that I can ramble about this and pretty much anything for ages but there always comes a point in discussion where I get tired and emotionally detached and I'm trying to keep myself from boring you with that. I think I'll take some time off from this thread again to liven my enthusiasm for it, or else abandon it altogether.

Do what you wish, but ask yourself this : why is NATO trying to bring Democracy, by bombarding libya, while more than 60% of the population of Libya are fighting for Gaddafi?
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on September 07, 2011, 08:45:17 am


RAK, i realise you must have reasons to believe the things that you do, i'm not going to try and stop you, but do recognise that Garion may not be entirely sincere, it's possible that he's using you as nothing more than a trolling aid, how do you, personally, feel about the trustworthiness of RT and the russian government, i'm curious.

Sorry, what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs#t=4m16s
i trust RT as i would any international news source.  i figure that i have to compensate for what the host government and my own want me to think.  from what i've seen of their english language programming, it seems quite a bit like al jezera.  they DO bring up the reports that the "western world" would rather not have in the headlines, but they have their own reasons behind doing so. i doubt my well being or how informed i am about international events is high on that list, if there at all.

as for russia itself...  it is common knowledge the mafia went to university then took over after the USSR fell apart.  i have personally known former citizens of a few former soviet republics.  the secondhand info i have received from these people lead me to believe that the whole of the former ussr is a cesspool of corruption that any sane human would want to escape at all costs.  then again, all of my contacts have been those who have successfully escaped.  at least part of the way.  one of my current "close" inline friends lives in one of those former soviet republics, and he wont stop telling me about how much he hates russians and everything about them.

i'm not sure garion is "trolling" per say.  he is enthusiastic, and lets his emotions overrule his mind sometimes, but this isnt really a bad thing.  its no great thing, countless allegories have been written about men who approach the world from a logical viewpoint as opposed to those who ride the storm tide of their own emotions.  garion and i agree on certain key factors in politics and world events.  whenever i see this, i always like to try to start up or join a conversation with this person.  it's rare i get to talk with others that generally share my views, as i dont make a habit of going anywhere people gather, online of off, to discuss such things.

i have a whole other post for garrion.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on September 07, 2011, 09:23:21 am

And, to be honest, most of you are fools, and if you can't understand a simple element such as war in Libya, it's obvious that you won't understand the reason truly explain this war, because war in Libya is just a part of a much bigger scheme. Plus, in every posts I made, I had a lot of people who didn't understand even the simple ideas I developed, and sometimes it is because they lack the knowledge of conventional logic. So, am I really going to waste all my time and efforts writing to people who are turned against me, who call me a troll and an idiot? No. Obviously not. I'll say it again, if I am speaking here, it is because I want to talk about the subject, and that if it can help some people from the community of a game I like, why not.
if you begin thinking yourself somehow above your fellow man, you just become more like the oligarchs you despise.  your knowledge does not set you apart or above.

you might also find it easier to hold a conversation about a topic you have interest in, if you were to stop assuming you are the only party present with the capability to tie his own shoes.  basically, no one likes a snotty, superior attitude.  this may be the reason so many assume you to be a troll.

i know that you've seen that i have been able to discuss the subject with both you, who agree with me, and nux and tremulant, who do not.  i think this to be partially from the fact that i have not degraded them in any way, and i have kept my "tone" somewhat level and neutral... as well as can be conveyed through text i suppose.  i also am not out to get anyone to change their lives or change their minds.  if they disagree with my opinion on the matter, it does not offend me.  my opinion is like a possession, not a friend.  furthermore, my dislike of someone else's opinion does not often color my opinion of the person who holds it.

oh, and dont think i was calling you a snob or anything in the first part of the post.  i understand that you are french, and i believe i can adapt to your cultural peculiarities.  you've seemd no more or no less a snob as any other frenchman i've ever met...  at least to my own somewhat earthly american sense of propriety.


hey! i'm joking!  why are you staring at me like that?
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 07, 2011, 03:59:56 pm
if you begin thinking yourself somehow above your fellow man, you just become more like the oligarchs you despise.  your knowledge does not set you apart or above.

This is silly, ever heard of Freud? A man's sensibility can, structurally, be different from the sensibility of another. It also means their understanding of the world will differ, and their determinations (and the energy that comes with determination) will also change. That is just to point out that men aren't alike, and that some are indeed above others. Secondly, ever heard of how work can provide elevation? I thought most men integrated that. I'm a man different than you, and I am not saying I am superior due to my nature (and I'm not saying the opposite). You know, if the homo sapiens sapiens is the man who thinks he thinks, it is because he realized there was something conditioning his conscience, and it made his survival much easier. As for today, surviving in society also requires a certain understanding of who you are, where you come from, how you were structured, etc. Then again, I'd like to point out that, if I believe I am above many of the posters here, on understanding the problems of today, it is surely (and not exclusively) because of the work I made. I'd also like to add that calling people a bunch of fools is by no way an insult. I simply try to use the words that fits what I am trying to say, and this time the word was fool. And I thought it was a pretty weak word, considering Janev and Pazuzu's posts, to only name these two.

you might also find it easier to hold a conversation about a topic you have interest in, if you were to stop assuming you are the only party present with the capability to tie his own shoes.  basically, no one likes a snotty, superior attitude.  this may be the reason so many assume you to be a troll.

There are many slogans that I can interpret differently in this message, but I guess I got the essential. If you think I consider myself to be the only one to be able to do something, you are wrong. First of all, I know many of you have the intelligence to understand, except the judgment might be off right now. If it weren't the case, I wouldn't have given articles for people to read, as it'd be useless. Also, whenever I am giving important informations, and that I'm linking my sources (I gave Thierry Meyssan, Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones, and many more credible sources), I get turned over as if what I gave was useless and without value. How am I supposed to prove what I'm saying in this case? Well, I can do it indirectly, I can show you how the occidental media jump on any information they are given. For exemple, the video of BBC showing India, I wasn't simply linking this video to show there was an error, I was also linking this video to show BBC is passing informations simply because the NTC gives them, as the NTC leader admitted the capture of Tripoli was fake. So what does it mean? It means the mass medias have a bias for the western side, it means they accept to pass the information they are given without questioning. Plus, many medias have also shown the rebels in the green square of Tripoli, the problem is that these videos were taken from a replica of the green square, so it's another form of propaganda made by the Empire on the same subject as the video I gave. And who has interest in lying here? The oligarchs or the Empire if you prefer, this is it. Also Israel (which can be associated with the Empire). There are many agents working for Israel that are called Sayanims, just as Bernard Henry Levy, who TOOK the place of the minister of exterior on Libya's field, and who is basically telling France what they'll do in Libya, eventho 99,xx% of the french population doesn't want to send troops in this war (Democracy you say?). BHL's simple presence to me is a proof that war on Libya is, just like most of the wars made by the axis of good, an evil war made for evil interest.


i know that you've seen that i have been able to discuss the subject with both you, who agree with me, and nux and tremulant, who do not.  i think this to be partially from the fact that i have not degraded them in any way, and i have kept my "tone" somewhat level and neutral... as well as can be conveyed through text i suppose.  i also am not out to get anyone to change their lives or change their minds.  if they disagree with my opinion on the matter, it does not offend me.  my opinion is like a possession, not a friend.  furthermore, my dislike of someone else's opinion does not often color my opinion of the person who holds it.

I wouldn't have been offensive to some persons if they wouldn't have been offensive with me. Surprisingly (no, not really), their attitudes resembled the attitude of the mass medias when they are facing someone who's against the dominant ideology. Altho, I tried to not degrade anyone, I was just rejecting, more or less ethically, their arrogant and insulting posts. For exemple, Tremulant and his silly clan mate called me a troll for giving them sources they did not find credible, obviously for stupid reasons, as they just barked at me. So I don't see why I'd be patient with these guys, nor why I'd be respectful. As I said, I'm not here to convince anyone, and if they try to attack me, I might be patient, but only to a certain point, then they'll see that I can be pretty good at insulting people back. And it isn't due to frustration.


oh, and dont think i was calling you a snob or anything in the first part of the post.  i understand that you are french, and i believe i can adapt to your cultural peculiarities.  you've seemd no more or no less a snob as any other frenchman i've ever met...  at least to my own somewhat earthly american sense of propriety.


hey! i'm joking!  why are you staring at me like that?

French in French is Français, Français has the word "franc" in it, and it means : sincere and direct. English in French is Anglais, Anglais has the word angle in it, and it measn what angle means in english. To me, you can see the french people as sincere and direct persons, and it is close to how the french lived in a monarchy (French monarchy, which is quite different from other monarchy), as the people were serving the good king, so it was a true relation, made of mutual help etc. As for English, as I said it has Angle in it's french version, and to me this resembles a lot more to the character of the merchants, as they are mostly leaned on courtesy, in order to sell more. This is to me obviously a more sinful relation, as the relation is based on abstractions and commerce. Anyway, I won't go further on this and I'll say what I wanted to say, relatively to that : it isn't being snob, nor acting as if I were superior to sincerely say what I want to say, and to say it directly. To me, this method is fundamentally better than twisting my speech so it pleases others, or to keep dealing with their bullshit without calling them what they truly are. Playing the devil's game never works, and god never suggested that we'd transform the nature of our thoughts or of our expression to please others or to be accepted. Then again, I won't go further here, because I could.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 07, 2011, 04:17:42 pm
i trust RT as i would any international news source.  i figure that i have to compensate for what the host government and my own want me to think.  from what i've seen of their english language programming, it seems quite a bit like al jezera.  they DO bring up the reports that the "western world" would rather not have in the headlines, but they have their own reasons behind doing so. i doubt my well being or how informed i am about international events is high on that list, if there at all.

as for russia itself...  it is common knowledge the mafia went to university then took over after the USSR fell apart.  i have personally known former citizens of a few former soviet republics.  the secondhand info i have received from these people lead me to believe that the whole of the former ussr is a cesspool of corruption that any sane human would want to escape at all costs.  then again, all of my contacts have been those who have successfully escaped.  at least part of the way.  one of my current "close" inline friends lives in one of those former soviet republics, and he wont stop telling me about how much he hates russians and everything about them.

i'm not sure garion is "trolling" per say.  he is enthusiastic, and lets his emotions overrule his mind sometimes, but this isnt really a bad thing.  its no great thing, countless allegories have been written about men who approach the world from a logical viewpoint as opposed to those who ride the storm tide of their own emotions.  garion and i agree on certain key factors in politics and world events.  whenever i see this, i always like to try to start up or join a conversation with this person.  it's rare i get to talk with others that generally share my views, as i dont make a habit of going anywhere people gather, online of off, to discuss such things.

i have a whole other post for garrion.

Ok, I'll answer this too because it's quite bad. Not only am I being accused of enthusiasm, I'm also accused of thinking too emotionally. If you think I jump on informations, you are wrong. I have sources and a good grid of analysis to filter things. I've had a life and I can put a bit of my trust in some persons, yet it doesn't mean I rely on their informations alone. It also doesn't mean it is only their voice that I trust, I simply find some things to be coherent and logical, yet I try not to jump on conclusions. But if you're not aware by now that the Empire is setting war in middle east because they have to, for globalism and to strengthen their grip, then you are the one who let's his mind being overcome by emotions. It's simply understanding the different elements. It's not because there's a new war that propaganda stops existing and that every other aspects in life stop being taken in consideration.

It doesn't matter anyway, with time, some of you might see I was right on most of what I said.

One last thing, I am almost certain that Russia is no more corrupted than the United-States (and Barrack Obama, if that's his true name). Plus, RT isn't made purely by Russians is you look closely. I've seen their reports on Libya (with people that came outside of Russia) and on economy (with Max Keiser), and it was pretty close to the truth. Now I'm not saying they are pure, I'm not saying they hold the light. And poutine isn't so bad, I'd rather have him than another Barrack Obama (Barrack Obama who is the advanced version of George Bush).
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on September 08, 2011, 12:31:32 am
good, it seems i was able to properly convey most of my ideas.

i dont have a high opinion of freud.  a cigar is a cigar, not a big brown dick.  not all of my problems in life stem from a subconscious desire to fuck my mother.  yes, i understand everybody has their own individual worldview.  i'm willing to allow that you have formed all of your opinions from what to you is the pinnacle of logic and rationality.  however when you express these opinions you come out "sounding" very emotional.  it might not seem that way to you, or even to anyone else reading your posts, 'tis just but another one of my opinions.  calling the general audience here that they are all fools may not be quite much of an insult, but it is a broad generalization.  this sort of thing should be avoided, because it is what you would expect from a mass-media bred simpleton, the kind of cretin that would think things like "all mulems/arabs are terrorists" and "if you are not with us, you are against us".  we should strive to avoid sounding like that, it weakens our position, regardless of however valid our points are.

what i was saying in the second line of mine that you quoted is this:  the people reading your posts have read an arrogant "tone" into them, regardless of your intentions.  this leads to the trading of insults, and your audience comes to think that this textual confrontation was your intention from the beginning.  by flatly ignoring the casual insult to myself, my research, or my sources, i can convey that i am serious about the matter and not just looking to pick a fight.  understand that the whole issue is differing interpretations of world events.  our interpretations are opinion.  yes, our opinions may be supported by facts, historical evidence, and the like, but at the end of the day they are still opinions.

instead of wasting time and weakening your position by stooping to their level and reacting to their provocation, redouble your research efforts.  find a source that they have no choice but to accept as credible.  this is how alex jones works, among others.  you dont have to see many of AJs productions to find at least one example of him using a mainstream news report to back his own position saying something to the effect of - "this is how confident they are, they even openly report this!"

aha!  you automatically assume that as an american, my ancestry is predominantly english!  while i do not deny that the smallest portion of my heritage decends from the shores of the british isles, more of my ancestors were both irish and scotsmen.  slightly less than that portion of my background hails from your native france.  the remaining third were cherokee.  like most of my countrymen, i am quite the mongrel.  oh, and it is my understanding that the original germanic angle tribe were rather more like vikings than merchants.  at least until after they had conquered brittian.

dont think i share the common american opinion that the french are snobs and cowards.  probably a holdover from historical english-french animosity.  i remember the oft forgotten fact that our two republics helped birth each other.  i know why so many roads are named "lafayette", why so many towns are named "fayatteville", and why a statue of the man exists in our nation's capitol, as well as why a statue of "the father of our nation" stands in your capitol.  france and america have historically stood together as allies against tyranny, only in the past century has public opinion shifted to put us culturally at each other's throats.

as to your second post - aside from points previously covered:  yes, i'm fairly certain i have a pretty firm grasp about this war is all about  there are a few more reason you have neglected to mention.  for one, the US is the one who put that dictator into power in the first place.  if memory serves, there was even a embarrassingly unsuccessful coup attempt before we got al quadafi into power.  again, if memory serves, we supported this bloody dictator because he was going to help us combat international terrorism (this was the at the time that aircraft hijackings was in the vogue for "terrorist" organizations.)  so, this is iraq all over again.  so it will be with nearly every nation we find the slightest pretext to start hostilities with, and we will.  remember that tired old quote about the evils of the military-industrial complex?  that's another factor.

wars are good for business.  especially in america, where we outsource almost all of our manufacturing aside from arms production.  wars are good for creating a spectical for people to argue about as more important domestic issues go unnoticed.  if we are trillions in debt, how can it be helping that we're shooting off 20 $100,000 missiles a day, among other expenses?  wars also get the public to relinquish their rights in the name of security.  never mind the fact that either jefferson or franklin said something to the effect of "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither"

i have no doubt america is at least as corrupt as russia.  the difference is, we hide it, they flaunt it.  though it would not surprise me if the situation were reversed in news sources available in cyrillic.  oh, i used to put a lot of stock in what mex keiser said, till he started spewing man-made global warming propaganda.  yes, max knows economics, but he knows jack shit about atmospheric science.  i'll trust the majority of climatologists (with peer reviewed studies) over an economist on that matter.  i recognize the green movement for what it is, a swindle and a distraction.  if max is going to join the swindle, i have no more faith in his words.  he is an entertaining fellow with the ugly truth about economic issues, though.

i'm also glad you see obama as brown bush, which he is.  aside from the spectacle of health care, you would not know he is supposed to be a member of the democratic party...  based on his policies.  you know, wars and expanding military spending are traditionally the domain of the republican party...   the democrats are supposed to cut back on the military.  just another example of the evils of the party system and the false dichotomy that exists within america's two-party system.

i'm glad that you are willing to discuss the matter, really.  but please, keep in mind that the events and facts have more than one interpretation, and that by disagreeing with you does not make either one of us wrong or right.  tell the truth, i dont think any one person can possibly know the whole truth of the matter.  there are just too many variables to consider, to many factors in too many people's lives.  who can possibly know why everyone involved made the decisions they did?  for all i know, oboma can be some sort of hostage, destroying my nation with his proclamations because he fears the retribution that would follow disobedience.  i can only frame my opinions from the scant few "facts" made available to me.

personally, i try to stick with the more mundane answers than to use the more exotic explanations that most people will dismiss as conspiracy theory, regardless of how much historical facts you have supporting your position.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on September 08, 2011, 01:29:51 am
For exemple, Tremulant and his silly clan mate called me a troll for giving them sources they did not find credible, obviously for stupid reasons, as they just barked at me.
As you are a known troll in other fields, it's hard for me to take you completely seriously, and when you come out with such gems as suggesting that RT, a russian government funded organisation that is clearly a dedicated propaganda machine, is the most well rounded news source i can turn to, it just makes me wonder...
If you're completely serious and fully support all of the somewhat alternative sources you've referenced then fair enough, but do try to ensure that you provide english language versions if you want people to pay attention to the ideas you're putting forward, and attempt to dig up some references to these sources by credible conventional news outlets, as we have no idea who they are or why they're supposedly trustworthy, at this point.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 08, 2011, 04:29:56 am
I will answer the new posts another time, right now I would simply like to post a little video, it is a man who explains how the economical system works (as a Ponzi scheme). He also explains what is happening in the USA right now (the crisis) and what should happen next, he also says it should touch the whole world. Here's the link : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkxar0_l-effondrement-du-systeme-economique-menera-a-la-troisieme-guerre-mondiale_news#from=embediframe

I know it's a pretty small video, so everything might not be clear. Again, I'm not asking to anyone to believe this, but I would like to precise that what is presented in this video, apart maybe for the predictions he made* (when he explained what'd happen or could happen in the future), is usually  what many resistants think, so I'm not the only one. That is simply to say that this video is considerable, because it contains many key ideas that many dissidents around the world share, so if some of you are willing to come closer to this group of people (eventho they are diabolized), then watch the video (it's a strong suggestion). If any of you wish to discuss about the video, I am willing to. I could also hand you some infos on the subjects, if you cared a bit more. Of course, I don't have every answers.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 09, 2011, 04:44:41 am
Here's another absolutely credible proof that war on Libya was wanted, thus it isn't for humanitarian reasons that it is happening :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8ya295inZc&feature=player_embedded


 
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on September 09, 2011, 01:15:31 pm
Neither video proves anything, one's speculation(who doesn't think that the financial system is severely screwed up and benefits no one but the banks?), the other's an anecdote about the previous US government, cut off before any great detail is discussed.

Videos of this sort are great for making those with a pre-existing belief in certain conspiracy theories smile, they do nothing to help explain to the rest of us why you consider those theories to be credible, and the moment we dismiss your "credible sources" we're told that it's simply a failing of our minds, brilliant.

Frankly, fuck this thread and its lolitics, it's time to let it die.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 09, 2011, 03:41:07 pm
Frankly Tremulant, a man who was the general of the US air force army, the general Wesley Clark, admits, after having seen confidential documents that only important members of the US administration can see, that war on irak wasn't funded and that they plan to attack 6 other countries (Syria, Libya, Liban, Somalie, Soudan and Iran) , and that this was already decided in 2001, and that is nothing for you?

You're right Tremulant, just leave this thread, I suggest you go watch occidental medias, they will show you the path you should follow.

edit: Hell, the more I come up with credible things that speak for themselves, the more I get called an idiot by the retards of this community.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on September 09, 2011, 08:56:34 pm
a quick search about former general clark reveals interesting things.  for one, he ran for president in 2004, but when it became apparent he would not win the primaries, he withdrew his bid to support hillary clinton.  when it became clear SHE would not win, he decided to endorse obama.  he is co-chairman of an ethanol lobbying group, and sits on the board of directors of BNK petroleum.  george soros owns a 20% stake in that company.  the same george soros that funds, in part, wikileaks.

yes, he may be telling the truth in this matter of out planned action in the middle east, but i doubt he is releasing this information for any good reason.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on September 09, 2011, 09:31:14 pm
To say the least about General Clark, I'd say he's closer to the US official side of the medal than I am, so he probably believes in many things he've been told. This doesn't mean he had bad intentions. Also, this information is good because it allows us to connect dots together, but it is not necessary. You will see the war will continue on the countries that were named (I can tell you Syria and Iran are almost certain to come). And the reasons will be the same they gave already (they may not be all present) : war on terrorism, installing democracy, removing a dictator, fighting nuclear, need to help the civil war/revolution.

What's fun about what I'm telling you is that it will actually happen, and the other people who predicted events like these generally followed the same line of thoughts. I'm not here to argue, I'm here to tell.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: RAKninja-Decepticon on September 09, 2011, 11:02:05 pm
oh i have no doubt that actions will play out in the middle east much as you describe.  i just have my doubts about the purpose of this man telling us this, confirming what is already known.  there are plenty of other sources that map out our campaign in the middle east.  you have but to look at history to know what nations will be involved.  just look at everywhere we've meddled since world war 2.  all of the coups and plots we've been involved with since that time are coming to fruition now.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on October 10, 2011, 09:14:02 pm
This is what happens when a journalist of BBC meets reality :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqHHJfBF0Sg&feature=player_embedded

It's quite funny because the Libyans would surely have had the same speech if BBC actually asked them.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: StevenM on October 15, 2011, 12:18:59 am
stop smoking pot iabz.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on October 16, 2011, 05:47:21 pm
It's still better than smoking some mass medias.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: StevenM on October 18, 2011, 12:02:41 am
ok then, keep smoking pot and come on HoN.
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Dracone on October 18, 2011, 08:57:37 pm
I always thought that events in the "Arab world" could just be summed up by "really violent and irrational series of Michael Bay shorts."
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on October 21, 2011, 03:08:04 pm
Here's another journalist having a similar speech as Thierry Meyssan's speech. She was also stuck in the hotel Rixos (Pazuzu and the ddos guys would tell us it is the location where buck hungry journalist make up their silly stories) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgmKeuoCTE&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on October 21, 2011, 06:21:16 pm
Is it impossible for you to find someone without a connection to Russia Today?
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on October 22, 2011, 03:52:14 pm
In fact, smart ass, these people were all outside Russia Today at first, they are simply interviewed by the people of Russia Today because Russia Today is a much more honest media than many, so when there are true journalists doing their jobs, they interview them without making them pass for crazies. But if that connection (the simple fact that they interviewed them) is too big for you...

edit : I will simply add, because it's important, that I already gave a good amount of documentation that came from elsewhere (for instance, infowars, voltairenet.org, etc..)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Tremulant on October 22, 2011, 10:15:04 pm
Russia Today is a much more honest media than many
Lay off the pot, there's a good chap.  ::)
Title: Re: The events of the ''Arab world''...
Post by: Garion on October 22, 2011, 10:39:42 pm
Russia Today is a much more honest media than many
Lay off the pot, there's a good chap.  ::)

You should follow your own hints. If I believe Russia Today is a more honest media than many it is because they have invited a few persons who held a speech that I agree with. Their ethic toward these persons was much more professional, they didn't diabolize anyone, and this means a lot. Anyway, I won't even bother going further with you on this subject because you're a sophist. Keep up with the slogans if you please, because at this point all I see is abstract ideas.  ;) (because you love smiley)