The first point I want to make is that a personal point of view is not propaganda. If you have understood Antar's first post then you would know
from the beginning that what she says is not propaganda. It's a personal point of view. One can express what one thinks and feels without it being
propaganda. Her views are not biased and misleading, she specifically states that every person who views the photographs should decide for themselves
what the photos mean. Propagandists do not offer choice, they offer a point a view and demand you accept it as truth -- a truth that holds true no
matter what other information you one might come across. Antar has not done that. She also suggests that folks consider more material than they have
been given through the media. She asks whether, after viewing the photos, others feel as if they have been conned into viewing Iran in a way that's
opposite from what the media and US politicians suggest. Her suggestion is that it is better to consider the whole picture rather than just part of
the picture. Knowing this how is it possible that anybody could state that Antar is offering up political propaganda? She does not say or even
suggest that her point of view is the only point of view to be considered. And although her voice is being broadcast all around the world through
ATS, she is not in control of the ATS apparatus, nor is her voice and point of view the only voice and point of view being broadcast through the ATS
apparatus. Any suggestion that she is propagandizing is ludicrious, baseless and without merit.
reply to post by centurion1211
Political propaganda, right? I specifically addressed you on the matter, and you haven't answered or substantiated anything yet. Just one snide
remark after another.
You referred to some folks as "U.S. haters", right? Is that not political propaganda? Is that how you address what
you perceive to be wrong, by doing the same thing, breaking the rule, committing the same crime? Is that how you rectify things? You know, Antar
posted pictures and suggested that each person make up her or his own mind. What you, Outrageo and others have done is worse. You've used words to
polarize the thread because you feel that an injustice of some sort has occurred. You demand that everybody see things in the way that you do. That
everybody come on over to your side. And if they do not then you continue your rant and star each other's posts to verify that you are united
against the cause that you desperately think exists. Well, it does it exist but only in your minds. Neither of you have seemed to pay attention to
any views that differ from yours. You just continue your stammering, saying the same thing over and over and over again. Never just making your point
and letting it be. It is clearly more than basic disagreement. Yes, you want to convert every view to your own view. You want to call authorities
in to settle the matter because you feel your claim is valid and substantiated enough that a moderator should come and assist and change things to
your liking. Centurion and Outrageo you are both clearly running a campaign, and you accuse Antar of propaganda by offering up your own brand
complete with a voting system designed to highlight your operation and ambitions.
There have been quite a few posts where folks have said that they appreciate the pictures but that the pictures were not persuasive enough to change
their views regarding the situation between the US and Iran. There were folks who only considered the pictures themselves rather than what the photos
could possibly mean. I, personally, addressed a couple of these folks because for me the pictures were not just about the pictures. This wasn't a
thread designed to talk about film exposure times and quality of lighting. Nor was it a thread that was designed where the subject matter of the
photos were to be the only thing considered. It was primarily designed where the point of view of those who made the pictures were considered, that
the places depicted in the photos were considered as being real places where people lived, where it was obvious to see care, thought, progress,
companionship, and creativity. All of these attributes obviously missing in reports from the US media. The folks I addressed, I addressed because I
felt that they were missing part of the picture. It doesn't mean that I was right, it just means that based on their comments I felt that they were
overlooking the major premise of the thread. This is after all a discussion, and my comments were not meant to steer them to drawing the same
conclusions as I did. My statements were only meant to clarify the reason why the thread was created. That maybe they should look a little deeper.
Now any of those folks could have disagreed with me and told me otherwise, and I wouldn't have taken it personally. They could have said that Iran
still deserves to go down, and I wouldn't have taken it personally. In either instance I would not have embarked on a campaign to demand that they
see things the way that I do, in the way that you and Outrageo have.
Why else would Outrageo send me hate mail telling me that he wishes he could take the star he gave one of my posts back? That because I disagreed
with him on a point in the thread, he feels it necessary to U2U me to let me know that he thought I was on his side, that he's sorry for it and
wishes he could take his star back? WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION FOR THAT?! I'll tell you what it is, the motivation is that Outrageo is taking things
personally and feels that there is some sort of conflict going on whereby he must make others feel bad because
he feels bad when others
disagree with him. That every thing is all hunky-dory just as long as he gets his flags, stars and stripes. That in order to be considered a friend
of his, or to be on the same side as he, one must not disagree with him. Otherwise one is an enemy representing the other side. That's what that is
all about. And that's his motivation in this thread because the U2U was sent to me regarding my disagreement with him in this thread! So really, I
ask, who is propagandizing who? From what I've experienced regarding this thread -- it is most certainly not Antar!