Traitors at NBC News

Once again a debate on the Media has just boiled down into verbal put downs and attacks on the administration.


Same day same story here on ATS!!!!

Originally posted by thermopolis
OMG.........NO...many, many VC were forced at gunpoint fo join and fight. Many VC leaders were from the north regular army.
So just how many hour could have been saved in the original invasion? We beat the heck out of the Iraqi army way, way faster than the media 'experts' could understand. The underestimation was on OUTSIDE islamo-terrorist action. Just as the wolverines in germany up to 10 years after WWII.
Iraq must succeed, we must have their 90 divisions for support of the attack on Iran. Same for India, pakistan, and afganistan.
The media HYPE about WMD's or no WMD's is exactly the fantacy dribble the mullahs need to stall until they get the nukes they want.

Forced at gunpoint? Please do some research before you say anything as ridiculous as that. Land reform was a major factor behind VC recruitment and was exploited by the Communists. Here's a link to a quite good website that mentions it about a third of the way down the page - www.rdiland.org...
Look it up anywhere else!
The 'Land-to-the-tiller' programme was carried out far too late in the day, at least a decade after it might have made a difference. If you have a local insurgency then you do the sensible thing and address the reasons behind it. And the South Vietnamese government was so flambouyantly corrupt that it didn't dare.
As for Iraq - you mentioned the outside elements? They were not that effective and were widely hated by the Iraqis. The Iraqi army was a busted flush from the start - few spare parts, low morale bloody awful pay, its commanders surrendering as fast as they could. Putting it back together and then expecting it to invade Iran is folly.
The main resistance in the run to Baghdad came from the Fedayeen, the irregular forces that Saddam had organised under his son. They were the reason why the supply lines snarled up briefly. Plus, it wasn't a question of more force equals a faster victory - instead it's more force equals a better, more comprehensive, victory. It was a sloppily planned operation. Yes, it worked, but that's not the point. The occupation has been a disaster so far because the boots were not on the ground to secure the country properly, to stop damage to the infrastructure and stop the looting. They should have anticipated the disorder. After years of Saddam of course the lid was going to fly off. The Fedayeen drifted back and then reappeared in the insurgency, armed with looted weapons that should have been secured. There is a low-grade civil war going on, a constant drip of casualties and continued civilian dead.

Originally posted by vuoto
It is estimated that there are less than 1 thousand Al Queda in Iraq. Some American military and intelligence officers put the estimate closer to 500. We have over 150,000 American troops in Iraq. 2300+ Americans have died in Iraq, but THERE ARE MORE AL QAEDA THERE TODAY THAN THERE WERE IN 2002!

In a country where you have pourus borders to places like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran it isn't very hard to have foreign national extremists pour in and try to destabalize the westernization of your country. There are more AL Qaeda in Iraq, but there are also more bridges, schools, working water systems, and oh yeah ELECTIONS. The rise in Al Qaeda can be accredited to dedicated terrorists using places like the Syrian border (Syria doesn't give a rats ass who is using their border to run into Iraq).

So, we have a thread here where a patriotic American blames the media. It's THE MEDIA's fault that the world hates America. It's THE MEDIA that's caused our country to become a debtor nation. It's THE MEDIA that's caused the deaths of more than 2300 Americans and the permanent disfigurement of tens of thousands more.

Well I think your twisting his post here. He's angry at the media for not helping bring international criminals to at least justice and instead opting to interview them so other media members may pat them on the back. Hes more blaming the media for the defeatist attitude displayed by people like you.

Anyone who can look at the state of the union, 2006, and blame the media should be ashamed of themselves. It can't be said any other way.

Thats pretty ignorant right there. People on this board should be able to blame, think, or believe pretty much anything without having to be ashamed.

Modern day warfare is much different than it used to be. Significantly because of the media. The coverage is incredible (not to be confused with credible hehe). We also have geneva conventions, so it's more humane. Sure, it doesn't completely annihilate this "civilian's are expendible" mentality, but it sure as hell helps. The world is watching and civilian casualities look bad. Those news reporters risked their lives, to bring America the point of view of the other side. It ain't like they are in cahoots with them, planning attacks. I just don't understand how anyone could call them traitors. They are doing their job, in an extremely risky environment. If a local team's main reporter interviewed a player from the opposing team, would that be traitorous?

The Media must be objective and impartial; able to stand outside of a situation and report news.

I think journalists have a duty to Truth that goes beyond mere patriotism.

You give up your right to complain about 'slant' otherwise.

the media is controlled by a few

a condition that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED to happen for ANY REASON

unless that can somehow be rectifed, and put back into balance , like it should be , then we have 2 choices ;

watch/ read as it is , [ knowing they are lying to us ] trying to decide what is the truth, what is spin, and what is the objective of the story

or shut off the TV SET and stop buying the papers/magazines which support the liars and network with each orther about the news

there are a couple of alternative papers I think still have a bit of integrity left in them...please patronize those truth tellers

Originally posted by Barcs
Modern day warfare is much different than it used to be. Significantly because of the media. The coverage is incredible (not to be confused with credible hehe). We also have geneva conventions, so it's more humane. Sure, it doesn't completely annihilate this "civilian's are expendible" mentality, but it sure as hell helps.

Didn't the Geneva Convention exist to the Nazis? Or what about some of the other people who the US has had to fight? When one army as to tie an arm behind it's back because it has to recognize rules that the other doesn't, it really hurts them.

Anyone ever seen the movie "The Patriot"? Just look at the British troops when they are all standing in line and fighting "by the rules" as the Militia tears them down.

Sorry about that, had to get that little piece off my chest before it boiled into something else...

Question outside my main theme of the post: When did warfare become "Modern"? I'm asking so that we can get a good idea of comparison to keep us civil.

I fail to see how an interview is glorifying the terrorists. If it looks that way to you then you must agree with what they say no?

Maybe we should also call out Channel 4 for interviewing Chechans after the Beslan incident. Or dosen't it matter if it's not your country affetced?

[edit on 22-3-2006 by ihatescifi]

I watched the NBC story and in my opinion it was pure propaganda, nothing more. You can watch it here for yourself (may open Media Player).

I'll do my best to sum up how I saw it.

Video starts with host previewing the scariest aspects of the story. What's with those backgrounds they use now? All fire and brimstone. The author of the story (Lisa Myers) kicks it off by telling the viewer how much of a threat the terrorists are, now and in the future - accompanied by more terrorist training footage - at least it's new footage, lol....

Clearly it's a priority to address how this interview could occur without the military knowing - she does that next, telling us that "the Taliban made sure we could not provide their location to the U.S. military." Indeed. I suppose we can allow this IF the military didn't know about these interviews, and we forget that this is a military that embeds their journalists. Well I believe they did know (and admit it later in the story) and clearly US forces control every step US journalists take in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even 7 hour journeys.

Next we get to the meat of the story - the interview and the trap to kill US soldiers. The US soldiers are coming to rescue a fallen Navy Seal, and the terrorists shoot it down, after failing to get the Seal to surrender. The video accompaniment is odd - 'video obtained by NBC news' shows what is supposed to be the terrorists baiting the Navy Seal (watch it and tell me if that's what you see), then they cut to file footage of an Apache. Why not use the 'obtained' terrorist video showing the helicopter?

Did I forget to mention even the terrorist compliments the American's valor? Quote: "We certainly know that when the American army comes under pressure and they get hit, they will try to help their friends. It is the law of the battlefield."

More doom and gloom: "Ismail also predicts more bloodshed to come."

I should point out that the web print version at MSNBC has edited the video version of the story. One telling section was when the terrorist explained his actions, saying that (I paraphrase without a transcript) 'this is war and that's what we do. They shoot us, we shoot them'. I'm surprised they left this in the video - it humanizes the terrorists by equating them with the US soldiers. Still it's one of the trues lines in the video.

Finally - the subtle truth. "NBC News provided details of the interview to U.S. intelligence." Yes, yes they did. The inference is they did this AFTER the interview. Not addressed is how they handled the military after the first interview. Nor do they mention exactly when they provided the details to US intel.

Cue the expert - there always has to be an expert. And he's telling us that this is the 'face of the enemy', although we didn't see a face, but they are 'utterly ruthless in their execution'.

Finally, end as ye began. Overtop video of dusty boots and helmets of(dead US?) soldiers: "U.S. officials confirm the enemy in Afghanistan has grown more bold and more vicious."

This story's message is the enemy is a facelss one, they are strong, they are evil, and they will be around for a long time. Exactly what the government has been saying ever since 911. The imagery could not be less subtle.

This thread was started in the vein that the press shouldn't air or shouldn't pursue this type of story, without having informed the military. I think it's absurd to think that the military would allow these interviews to happen in the first place - remember these are embedded journalists. Either we've been lied to about what that means or the military let this happen.

Let's assume somehow they did get this footage without the military knowing (again there were TWO interviews, so I'm asking you to really suspend your common sense) - do you really think that the military would allow it to air without seeing it first? Again I believe it's naive to think that the military would let a story go to air where the press gets to the enemy where they couldn't. I suppose military censorship wouldn't be neccessary at all if this were truly the case - NBC would be the first to self-censor this if they couldn't get the Pentagon's approval first.

That's my cynical take. I hope you enjoyed it.

Originally posted by vuoto

Some people would rather not know the truth. For many, knowing what's really happening the world is not as important as having his own opinions reinforced. Since there's agreement among everyone who knows anything about Iraq that the war has been a colossal failure, was started based on a pack of lies, and is bankrupting America, but some folks want so badly to believe the President when he tells us that we're winning, it's a righteous cause, and the people of Iraq are showering American soldiers with flowers, and candy, and thanks.

If anything, the media in America is so afriad of backlash from their corporate masters that they dare not tell the real truth about Iraq and the disaster that the president has created. Remember, reporters in Iraq are limited to going to places and seeing things that the military allows. Unlike Viet Nam, where members of the media could seek out the truth themselves, the media in Iraq is shown only what the administration wants them to see. If the best they have to show is a horrible failure, can you imagine how much worse the truth must be?

Well said.

Originally posted by Agent47

..... There are more AL Qaeda in Iraq, but there are also more bridges, schools, working water systems, and oh yeah ELECTIONS. The rise in Al Qaeda can be accredited to dedicated terrorists using places like the Syrian border (Syria doesn't give a rats ass who is using their border to run into Iraq).

I'm half serious, half sarcastic here, but, could you provide a link proving that there's more bridges, schools and water works now then there was before the US blew up the ones that were there? Could I suggest the Haliburton/ Kellogg Brown Root website as a starting point?

get people ALL HYPED UP ABOUT SECURITY etc

and install new laws to prevent , blah blah blah

lol

what a freaking joke



[edit on 22-3-2006 by toasted]

I think to compare world war 2 to this ´war´is a fallacy. 2 completley different situations. And freedom of press means freedom of press, not when it suits the American government or any government that has an open press.

free press ?

what free press ?

I see mostly a controlled press , dressed up as a free press

what free press are you referring to , eh ?

Fair point toasted. I was talking about the theoritical free press! the one that exists in the movies! I love democracy, its just so true to it´s ideals

Originally posted by Darkmind

Forced at gunpoint? Please do some research before you say anything as ridiculous as that. Land reform was a major factor behind VC recruitment and was exploited by the Communists. Here's a link to a quite good website that mentions it about a third of the way down the page - www.rdiland.org...
Look it up aywhere else!

Look it up? I was there. Sons were taken and had to fight to save their families from torture back in the village. Land reform is a academic MYTH past 1954. This BS is exactly why traitors at NBC need to be taken out. The rewritting of the truth on internet sites.

Wait a minute, I'm still not following your really weird logic here, thermopolis. Why does anything about the "re-writing of the Viet Nam war" have anything to do with this interview? And why are you implying this interview is some attempt to re-write history? It's an interview...not a "change in account" of some battle or war.

And have you contacted the Air Force guy to inform him you think he is a traitor yet? I'm serious...he hasn't got a clue that him thinking this interview - and the revelations of what U.S. troops are facing over there - is a treacherous act. I think with all the patriotism you're showing you should have some kind of concern for this issue.

"traitors"???

no...

this interview is awesome

why is this???

it's about time an american news agency directly interviews the "enemy" and does not, simply, say that the "enemy" is close and on our doorsteps...

Two issues have grown here. One is this interview and its publication over NBC. Aid and comfort to the enemy by helping glorify.

Second is the tendency of so many "netbabies" that if it does not exist on the net "it" didn't happen or happened differently than actual history.

The mass media is now and has been anti-america. Too many "hide" behind freedom of the press to spew their filth and outright hate.

I have no love for "W" but I also don't like the "haters" in the media that have put MY country in danger because of their short sighted stupidity.

Originally posted by thermopolisAid and comfort to the enemy by helping glorify.

How does it glorify them? There is a fundamental difference between exposing the motivation and pyschology of an al-Qaeda operative and glorifying them.

Glorification supposes that NBC would be trying to state that al Qaeda is right in what it is doing. Did NBC state that al Qaeda is justified in its actions and that their view of America is realistic?

The NBC interview would seem to me more akin to an anthropological or pyschoanalytical study. Anthropologists and pyschologists routinely interview characters that in society we consider morally corrupt. Why? Because this information helps us form our own realistic view of the world concerning issues most important to us.

Thermopolis, in my opinion, you seem to be supporting the suppression of the very information that can help save our country.

Ignorance is bliss only to the weak, my friend.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Jamuhn]

Valhall,
"WOW! What a jump in logic. Reminds me of a joke about flawed logic, a weedeater and homosexuality. "

ok i 've GOTTA ask...whats the joke?

Originally posted by toasted
the media is controlled by a few

a condition that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED to happen for ANY REASON

unless that can somehow be rectifed, and put back into balance , like it should be

To be fair, the media never was balanced. I'm doing media studies now, and I've seen samples of 15th century corantos (something like a newsbook, the pre-cursor to daily newspapers) and they show remarkable slant, either opposed to the government of the time or not.

Then slowly the governments in power (in Europe) took away press freedoms so that by the 17th century the courants were heavily censored, in terms of local affairs. They were allowed to report on foreign wars and matters though, but not anything that would make the governments in power look bad.

It started to change back around the 18th century, with press freedoms restored, and with it slightly less bias then it was in the 15th century. By then the currents and dailies were starting to look more like todays newspapers.

The whole point I'm trying to make is, it never was fair and balanced. There has always been a slant, one way or the other. Plus in the past, it was really controlled by the few. In fact, it was just the writer (who was also the editor) and his type-setter (also known as printer)

[edit - fixed quote, added bit about 'controlled by few']

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Beachcoma]