Libyan teen tries to take own life to escape NATO bombs

Sounds like propaganda


Besides, even if its not, urban populations were ravaged by bombs globally during WWII. Little girls didnt take pills and try to kill themselves, they rallied together with family and neighbor and struggled through for the sake of their country.

I didnt see anything about her losing relatives, her house, or her ipod. So, is it the loud noises that prompted this suicide??

I just noticed that there is construction going on in all my neighbors houses.... I DONT WANT TO LIVE ANYMORE!!

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I find it quite amusing how they say a russian news source is more reliable when infact they are most probably just as bad as each other.

If you choose to generalize that Russian MSM is the same as Western MSM without actually studying the differences between the two, then why do you even bother commenting on it? Sounds like a bunch of anti-Russian bias in this thread, IMO.

Seriously, I posted the question earlier: If RT isn't a reliable source, then what is? Because I would really like to know what you naysayers think is reliable source material (especially since you guys don't seem to provide any, instead focusing to attack sources that you disagree with).

The point is that this story is being propped up by THE VERY SAME people on here who reject, out-of-hand news reports from American mainstream media. To prop up 'mainstream' media from Russia because it supports your (not necessarily you) anti-NATO perspective is evidence of hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

RT is a news source.

They are not state-run.

Russia does allow freedom of the press.

I have observed the practices of CNN/FOX/CTV/RT and RT definitely has more factual reporting than the others. CNN and Fox News makes me cringe at how people can be so stupid to believe them. You want to talk about state-run propaganda outlets? Just look at the American news corporations (key word, corporations. They are at the top because they say what the US government wants them to say).

I don't know where you get your facts from, but RT reports have never really contradicted any facts that I've heard from more legitimate sources, especially information covered in my geopolitical studies. Perhaps you just don't agree with what they report.

edit on 14-6-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

They are state-run. Russian govt funds them and Russia has some of the lowest freedom of press scores in the world. Funny so many here blast the MSS, but somehow think RT, which has a history of extreme abuses of journalistic integrity, is great (probably because they both spread baseless conspiracies).

Very well-sourced article here:

Controversies and Russia TodayT

I mean read that and still tell me with a straight face they are as impartial as Western media outlets. Even during the Arab Spring in Egypt they ran random stories about Zionist agents and all this other completely unfounded BS only people here would believe because they heard it from some blog.

Russia Today is worse than Fox News and to compare them to legitimate news organizations shows your partiality and disregard for looking into the facts. In fact, I'd say your a Russian plant who only listens to news sources that say what you like and viewpoints you support, like state-fed Russian BS. Your username supports that conclusion.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


A good post but I'm not sure whether you caught my sarcasm. Some of these supposedly loyal tribes were dancing around opposition-held areas firing in the air whilst Gaddafi was up on the telly waxing lyrical about how loyal they were. Not long ago, the Libyan government threatened that Western tribes would attack Misrata, the same tribes that were in actual fact providing shelter to the civvies that were fleeing from the city. These were women and children who fled while their sons, husbands and fathers stayed behind to resist G forces.

It isn't difficult to be loyal to some crazy bastard dictator when he's the king of the castle and needs you far more than you need him. When he's cowering in a dark place where the nasty Westerners can't get at him and you perceive said Westerners to have you in their crosshairs because he's claiming that you're best mates, being seen as a loyalist is far less attractive. If that's not enough encouragement, witnessing the effects of a murderous crackdown on your own people and then being expected to support and even participate in it certainly is. Clearly Gaddafi still has his supporters, but this support is constantly ebbing away.

An attempt at carving up the country would result in a right bloody mess, and I doubt that the opposition would ever accept it as they seem to think that they can 'liberate' the whole country.

This is why it's tough to support the NATO bombing.

Sure, intervention to oust Gaddafi is great, anything that helps the people take back their own country is a step in the right direction but even the best laser guided missiles can miss the targets intended.

Short of supplying weapons (only to have those same weapons used against the allies years later as we saw when the US helped the Afghans against the Soviet armies which in turn led to the rise of al-Qaeda) or sending ground troops in (which would be seen as an act of invasion), what else is there?

reply to post by Evanescence


RT receiving funding from the Russian government is not the same as "state run television". If it was state run, you would see government officials announcing the news, similar to North Korean news or C-SPAN.

Hell, I think every Canadian news network that I have immediate access to (from national to provincial to local) obtains most of their funding through government grants. It doesn't mean they are state run. It might mean they are more inclined towards pro-government stories (unlike perhaps a radical leftist news outlet or parody shows like "Air Farce" or "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" that the government cut funding to).

Actually, I don't understand how any other top news network foundations could be more impartial than those funded by government. Privately-owned news corporations are the most biased of all, really only supporting the views of the rich elite that own them. This is true for most American networks where the media there seems to follow a serious agenda that has no quarrels with manipulating American public opinion against the American government if it doesn't follow in line with what the news corp owners want done. And who are these owners? Same guys who are on the top of Wall St.? Hmmm

Again, I implore you, please show me an example of a fair and balanced mainstream news network. Because I don't think you can.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Evanescence

 

RT receiving funding from the Russian government is not the same as "state run television".

Yes, it does.

Hell, I think every Canadian news network that I have immediate access to (from national to provincial to local) obtains most of their funding through government grants. It doesn't mean they are state run.

Yes, it does.

Again, I implore you, please show me an example of a fair and balanced mainstream news network. Because I don't think you can.

So you admit that RT is based, and therefor should be questioned in the same way we question western mainstream media?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Again, I implore you, please show me an example of a fair and balanced mainstream news network. Because I don't think you can.

So you admit that RT is based, and therefor should be questioned in the same way we question western mainstream media?

You've completely avoided answering my question by twisting my words around, as predicted

I never once claimed RT is totally unbiased. There's no such thing. All I've said is that I believe their reporting, especially since they are picking away at the American propaganda machine that has been in full swing ever since 9/11.

Let me ask you something: If someone watches propaganda all the time, and then they watch alternative news that doesn't report the same story, wouldn't the person naturally see the second source as propaganda?