Russian TV in the service of Iraqi Information Ministry

[muxec]

I bet $ that even if Saddam had no WMD, USA will find chemical weapons.

[muxec]

If you know Russian you can read how Russia win in war in Iraq:

http://www.rambler.ru/db/news/msg.html?mid=3345367

[Panag]

Originally posted by muxec
I bet $ that even if Saddam had no WMD, USA will find chemical weapons.

hi ,

saying that saddam has no WMD's is like saying the world is flat , ................

have a nice day

[muxec]

hi ,

saying that saddam has no WMD's is like saying the world is flat , ................

have a nice day

It's actually why i bet $

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


I disagree. What Turkey did was democracy. I can't even begin to count how many times the U.S. Congress has thrown a wrench into a president's personal foreign policy. What Turkey's legislators did was no different, and how the result came about was due to democracy in action.

I admit that the outcome didn't please me, but, hey, it came about due to legislators exercising their votes. They're not a rubber stamp parliament, y'know. Those men and women voted, likely, based on the opinions they heard from their constituents.

Happens all the time in the United States and elsewhere in the Western world.

Gatekeeper

I have no problems with what Turkey did at all -- in fact, my first thought on the matter was "Hey, look at that, they really are a democracy!"

[Ned]

Originally posted by LaRusso


ned, there is the following problem. the losing side is the only one charged with war crimes. milosevic (who i hate profoundly) is currently on trial for, among other things, shelling of dubrovnik. according to recent british terminology, it was a 'legitimate military target'. croatians had less arms and retreated into city. it was shelled. either milosevic AND bush are guilty or none of them are.
i have no problems with any standard being applied, but i have problems with too many standards being applied selectively

LaRusso, I agree about double standards. However, AFAIK, we never targeted civilian areas of any Iraqi city - except for our attack on Saddam in the restaurant. We may have had committed some mistakes. I suspect that those who really screwed up and caused civilian casualties will be court marshalled.

I am unfamiliar with the allegations concern shelling of Dubrovnik. I suspect that Milosevic ordered indiscriminate shelling of the city - that is, without regard to whether the targets were civilians or not. I can assure you, that no one in the US or British governments ever authorized anything like that in Iraq.

[VetLegion]

I am unfamiliar with the allegations concern shelling of Dubrovnik. I suspect that Milosevic ordered indiscriminate shelling of the city - that is, without regard to whether the targets were civilians or not. I can assure you, that no one in the US or British governments ever authorized anything like that in Iraq

Something like that. Dubrovnik has no barracks or other military instalations in it, and was at the time defended by just a few hundred lightly armed people, less in some moments. Its position is extremely non-strategic, as it is on the sea coast and surrounded by hills possesion of which means total control of the city.

Even Milosevic is speaking how it was a bad idea and it should not have been done, and he didn't order it. In his words, Croatian troops provoked the city to be bombed with explicit purpose to get it on CNN. So comparing Dubrovnik to Baghdad is a stretch.

ned, there is the following problem. the losing side is the only one charged with war crimes.

At least in ex-yu conflict, so are the victors (Croatia)


I am not defendind the US, but your comparisons are weak Larusso

[Serb]

An interview with american renegade reporter (the same who was interviewed by Iraqi TV) was voiced over. The voice over presented it as if the commentator went on and on about how the Iraqis resisted and how the US was not prepared, but are now employing a "no holds barred" tactic to finish the job. A closer listen to the original soundtrack that was not silenced allowed me to conclude that the "no holds barred" part was a russian invention. In reality the reporter talked about the cooperation US troops are attempting with Iraqi civilians.

Bull****. I don't know where you get it, but I suspect it was work of your Israel chanel 9 (or whatever you call it) editors. I saw the interview with Peter Arnet on Russian ORT TV channel and there was no "voice over" only translation of asked questions and consider what I heard he said, it was very accurate translation.

The incident where Russian ambassadors got in the middle of a fight between Iraqi an US forces was presented as if US forces suddenly opened fire on an unsuspecting Russian concoy. This is what all the broadcasters said, except for one Russian journalist who was interviewed, who was actually on the scene when it happenned, who admitted that they got into a middle of a gun fight, and were infact close to a concentration of Iraqi forces.

Funny, yesterday I saw interview with this journalist and he said that he is absolutely sure that it was American forces who opened fire on them. Also, I saw interview with Russian ambassador who said the same. Also, I know that holes in cars were made by 5,56 bullets. Also, I know that two bullets extracted from wounded were bullets from M-16 too.
So no, it weren't Americans who wounded our diplomats.

[Asher]

Perhaps if the diplomats had some sense of direction and didn't drive away from where they'd said they'd be, they'd have better chances of surviving next time.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
How does Russian TV think they can get away with such lies? Do they censor or restrict access to other media?

Now do you understand that all what Sirotinikov said is bullsh!t? How anyone can censor or restrict access to other media in age of internet?
80% of what he said is absolute crap. Sure Russian media shows this war in different light, in non-American, anti-war light, but it doesn't mean that there is no freedom of speech in Russia as Sirotnikov describes it. Btw, I doubt that the way how Russian media shows this war is very different from the way how European media shows this war.

Or, which is more likely, is the other media in English or some other language the average Russian cannot understand?

I am average Russian and I watch BBC in English and understand it.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Asher
Perhaps if the diplomats had some sense of direction and didn't drive away from where they'd said they'd be, they'd have better chances of surviving next time.

Now I see how YOUR media portrays YOUR screw-up.
1) They were exactly where they said they would be.
2) It was planned attack against diplomats, an attempt to stop cars and check what our diplomats are trying to extract from Iraq. Which is violation of all possible international laws.
3) They survived. Few people including ambassodor were injured, one baddly.
4) have a nice day.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Serb
Now I see how YOUR media portrays YOUR screw-up.
1) They were exactly where they said they would be.

Link?

2) It was planned attack against diplomats, an attempt to stop cars and check what our diplomats are trying to extract from Iraq. Which is violation of all possible international laws.

Link?

It sounds to me like the Russians got lost (they're Russian), got shot at, and want to blame it on the evil Americans.

After all, Russians like Iraq because of all the money they owe you and all the **** you sell them.

[Serb]

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, nothing like what we have seen from Russian media during this war. They so misreport the facts as to turn truth on its head.

I doubt you seen anything from Russian media. I doubt you saw any Russian TV news. I guess your opinion about Russian media based on Sirotnikov's claims.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Asher

Link?

Link?

It was in news here. Is you media never reported that Russia made an official protest to USA about attack on the Russian diplomatic convoy?
Try this if you think that case is closed;
" Incident with attack on RF diplomats in Iraq "not closed" -FM

09.04.2003


By Yelena Pankratyeva


MOSCOW, April 9 (Itar-Tass) -- The incident with the attack on the Russian diplomatic convoy outside Baghdad last Sunday "is not closed, of course", Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said on Wednesday.

"We expect to get an exhaustive answer based on the results of the investigation that is being conducted by the coalition command", he said.

The spokesman warned, "The Russian side reserves the right to undertake appropriate actions to seek compensation for the moral and material damage".

http://www.itar-tass.ru/english/allnews/266149.html

Or this:

"The Russian officials expressed serious concern about the attack on the Russian diplomatic convoy outside Baghdad, as a result of which several diplomats were wounded, and actions by the U.S. military that obstructed the convoy's further movement. "

http://www.itar-tass.ru/english/worldeng/263107.html

It sounds to me like the Russians got lost (they're Russian), got shot at, and want to blame it on the evil Americans.

It sounds to me like Americans attacked diplomatic convoy which was under BIG WAVING RUSSIAN FLAGS. Consider that US military command was warned about movement of convoy I see only two possibilities here:
1) Americans attacked for puropse.
2) They are complete idots who shots at eveything what moves and who unable to determinate differences between Iraqi and Russian flags.

After all, Russians like Iraq because of all the money they owe you and all the **** you sell them.

Yeah, damn true And Canadians like Americans because they plays hockey like girls.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Serb
It was in news here. Is you media never reported that Russia made an official protest to USA about attack on the Russian diplomatic convoy?

Perhaps in Russia "not closed" == "The Americans did it".

But that's not how it works everywhere else.

Unless you want to provide links from a credible source talking about how the Americans were the shooters, why don't you refrain from saying it?

Yeah, damn true And Canadians like Americans because they plays hockey like girls.

Are you ashamed, then, that a bunch of girls kicked your ass in Olympic hockey?