Russian TV in the service of Iraqi Information Ministry

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Nevs23
@spiritof1202:
Sounds plausibly.

Question: For which reason must the Iraqis use SAM's and AAA?

Answer: They are attacked by the coalition.

There is no adequate reason for the Iraqi's to use unguided SAM's in the city center, however. They should have moved them outside of the city, when they knew they'd not use radar with them.

[Bereta_Eder]

Personally, I'm appauled at some of the gore happy TV stations in Greece. Although I do believe that the results of the US/UK bombing should be shown.

But one can take only so many mutilated little bodies of children lying in hospital beds.

Or people forced out of their homes, taken prisoners, families being terrorised or humiliated.

But these things need to get out and thank God for having so many reporters in Iraq and Bagdat this time. And pluralism of coverage.


See we can talk all we want, a kid burned up and blown to pieces by some bomb coming from another continent that had no place being there, is no talking. It's real.


Just as your 11 Sept. was real and inhuman and freakish, this is the same for these children and families.


When the water and power is being cut off for days and families are dead thirsty because of the US/UK invasion... and then an american van comes with water and 2 dozen cameras are being set up to record what follows, people stepping on eachother and waiting 10 hours to get two bottles of water something is apparently at seriously miss...

That Americans are bloodthirsty?

Of course not.

That they are "savages" at war? No. I believe american soldiers can be of the most humane there is (never mind the oxymoron).

The bombs and their results, the casuaties is where the savagery exists, it's high tech alright, it's the same though... only much more worse.


Oh and we get CNN too. But when people and children are killed I don't think I have the patience to hear Bush trying to justify it. It's just too irritating.

[spiritof1202]

Saddam and his cronies have been killing civilians INTENTIONALLY since 1968.

They've killed nearly two million intentionally since that date.

The death of an statistically insignificant number of civilians in removing this genocidal regime is incidental.

Many more civilians will be saved by the removal of Saddam in 3 months, than have been lost in the course of the war.

Collateral damage is understood by every nation, as an understandable, if not inevitable part of war.

Any claim that somehow the current level of civilian casualties are reason not to have this war is ridiculous: Do nothing for 3 months and the same number AND MORE, would be dead and mutilated at the hands of the Ba'ath party.

[Bereta_Eder]

That's just propaganda.

Regimes in that region that are your ALLIES are more cruel than Sadam's. And of course the high level of casualties is because you fail to understand that people will defend their country. Regardless.

Also, if Afganistan "reconstruction" is any indication, I seriously doubt that the people your bombs kill will not be in vain...


You have practically abandoned Afganistan in a worse state that was before.

[Bereta_Eder]

Also, the intentional part doesn't really cut it.

When you're throwing bombs by the dozens, you're very intentional killing.

[Nevs23]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
... they... not use radar with them.

Sure?

This isn't the point.
They wouldn't use any SAM's and AAA, if they aren't attacked.

[spiritof1202]

No... there is a big difference from a guided munition, aimed at a military target, and...

* shooting civilians in the head
* gassing entire villages of civilians with mustard gas and nerve agent
* torturing men, women and children with electricity
* torturing 'traitors' by letting them slowly dissolve in bathtubs of acid

[Bereta_Eder]

and how is that worse from blowing 1.5 year old babies to pieces?

[Ned]

Paiktis, do you even admit the possibility that the US is not targeting civilians?

Regardless, the kids have been hurt. We need to end this war as quickly as possible to end the carnage [by Saddam's forces against his own people].

BTW, Paiktis, are you pleased the Turks have lowered their status in the world due to their failure to support a Northern front?

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Nevs23

Sure?

This isn't the point.
They wouldn't use any SAM's and AAA, if they aren't attacked.

The SAM's would work as well if they were stationed outside the city, and wouldn't have the absolute guarantee of hitting civilians with explosive warheads.

I understand that the Iraqi's have a right to self-defense, but that doesn't extend to bombarding their own citizens in doing so, and claiming that those attacks were caused by the Coalition.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by paiktis22
and how is that worse from blowing 1.5 year old babies to pieces?

Gassing a baby is way different from collateral damage incidentally killing a baby.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ned
Vagabond, paiktis, We have so many different news sources that it hard to "lie." It is not hard to provide a biased report, however. We know there is a difference between the LA Times and FOX, between the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. They all slant the news.

But news can be slanted even more than that. And this doesn't necessarily imply lies (although lies are not excluded).

The differences between the news sources you mentioned are like the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, i.e. relatively minor. These differences may be significant to you, but if we compare them to the differences in the Russian political spectrum (from the Communists to the Evil Capitalists), they are really minor. The same is true for the media.

My only question is how they can expect to have any credibility if the people can access Western media which, although somewhat biased, has very high standards about telling telling the truth and not making things up.

It's your opinion about American media, which may not be shared by the Russian people, especially in what so sensitive issues as Iraq are concerned.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It's your opinion about American media, which may not be shared by the Russian people, especially in what so sensitive issues as Iraq are concerned.

Please tell me that the website I referenced earlier isn't considered a credible source in Russia.

are you pleased the Turks have lowered their status in the world due to their failure to support a Northern front?

Nothing of importance has changed in our alliance has changed. The reasons it existed before still exist and I fail to see any reasons beyond pure pettyness that it would change now.

[spiritof1202]

Its certainly possible that the Kurds will be allowed to form an independent state: Kurdistan.

Then the Turks (and the Iranians) will be annoyed, although they've really no reason to be.

[Nevs23]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
I understand that the Iraqi's have a right to self-defense, but that doesn't extend to bombarding their own citizens in doing so, and claiming that those attacks were caused by the Coalition.

In this war all victims are caused by the coalition directly or indirectly.

There is no reason for an invasion war.
Where are the mass destruction weapons?