The events of the ''Arab world''...

[Garion]

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.

[Nux]

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.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

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.

[Nux]

Yes, there is a long credible history of, for instance, America employing covert operations in order to overthrow regimes. 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.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

Yes, there is a long credible history of, for instance, America employing covert operations in order to overthrow regimes. 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.

[Garion]

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.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

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.

[Garion]

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).  

[Nux]

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.

[Garion]

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.

[Nux]

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.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

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.

[Garion]

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

[Garion]

@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.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

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.

[Garion]

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.

[Nux]

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.

[Garion]

"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.

[Nux]

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.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

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.

[baybal]

Yes, there is a long credible history of, for instance, America employing covert operations in order to overthrow regimes. 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

[Plague Bringer]

Fuckin' ayyy-rabs.

[your face]

the islams are rampant

[vcxzet]

[Garion]

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.   

[Nux]

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 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.

[Garion]

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.

[Garion]

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) :

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

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 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.

[Nux]

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, the government, in sport 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.