Don’t forget to bring a smock.
Patently false? What, are you Jeff Bezos?
The US/UK Coalition Command (as opposed to the Pentagon) is demonstrably controlling the information that comes out of the war front. And rightly so, as has been said, for reasons of operational security.
But over and above that, the military command does control what reporters get to report, by controlling where they get to go and what they get to look at. I think it is safe to assume that this command is trying awfully hard to enure that only images supporting the fiction of the “surgical” war get out. If it’s anything like the last one, we won’t see pictures of burning appartment buildings and wrecked hospitals, but we’ll get lots of footage of laser-guided munitions hitting bridges and American soldiers rounding up Iraqi deserters and so forth, along with occasional pictures of some damage done by the retreating Republican Guard, which the brave civilians from Halliburton are repairing.
THIS REALLY FUCKING ANNOYS ME.
By perpetrating the fiction that this is a clean and “bloodless” war, we are doing a disservice to the courage and integrity of the men and women who are fighting in a foreign country and might well die there.
By hiding/minimizing the Iraqi military casualties and the unintentional (but unavoidable) civilian casualties, we are hiding the blood price that is being paid for the land. And we are perpetrating the myth that this is a game (with half-time show by Christina Aguilera and Aerosmith) that we can win. Which means that we’ll do it again, with even more enthusiasm – “let’s win one for the Gipper”.
I was opposed to this war, mostly because I felt that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were being (shall we say) disingenuous in their public statements of why we needed to do it. Clearly, toasting Saddam Hussein is part of the “Bush Doctrine” for reasons not immediately connected to the search for Al Qa’ada (or whatever this week’s spelling is) and international terrorism.
But war is occasionally necessary. And in a war, people on all sides get put in harm’s way (sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally, sometimes just because God has a twisted sense of humor). It’s not a fucking movie where Bruce Willis survives at the end and even the dead guys get to show up for the Oscars.
Sorry about that. To end on a positive note: It’s nice to see Airman Doors still posting; guess they still have internet access at the Riyadh Holiday Inn, eh? 
Sorry, was that confusing to you? Let me try again. I am defining “Cite” to mean a quote or authority that proves a point that I am debating (are you with me on this so far), where as a “Link” is a cool little trick that web browsers can do that display a web page.
For example, I might state that there were a lot of anti-war protests in England recently, and then CITE BBC news. Conversely, I might POST A LINK to an article in the Onion that I found to be socially relevant, yet humorous (and admittedly not measuring up to the meticulous scholarly vigor that SDMB demands).
All clear?
What I find pretty funny is that I was reasonably certain that Kate Adie didn’t even work for the BBC anymore.
I knew I’d heard it somewhere:
(Sorry I can’t quite get the coding sorted)
Although I can see that if someone wanted to lend authenticity to a story then picking the name of one of the most famous British correspondents and throwing into a report would certainly help.
**
**
What are you talking about? In addition to the hundreds of journalists with the coallition forces, there are hundreds of journalists in Baghdad and in Northern Iraq. Each one seems to be equipped with a videophone and is providing a live feed. Right at this minute, I’m watching Baghdad getting blown up in real time. I have no doubt that when Baghdad is finally captured, I will be able to watch the same battle, live, from both sides.
oops, pass the humble pie, the interview certain seems to be true;
Direct link to the Radio Telefís Éireann site;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0309/sundayshow.ram
I’ve had a listen to it and it’s an accurate transcript.
It was quoting Kate Adie as joining from the BBC that threw me off, guess they were just meaning the studio not the corporation.
::another vote for ‘double check before you post’::
Sorry all.
But it can’t possibly be true because it comes from a lefty source and we all know that 100% of everything that they say is a lie while the noble conservatives speak the truth. 
This is what it said at the bottom of the “live babies” article. I would assume it goes for the other articles as well.
CAUTION:
War fanatical members of the public who happen across this report shoud beware that this is in fact a SATIRICAL article.
Satire is a form of wry black comedy which relates essential truths in an oblique manner. Persons with war-focussed tunnel vision have been known to mistake this type of material for factual reporting…
Binarydrone I quoted all of your original post so that you could see how little indication that your post was satire. While they may be overused at times, in this case, smilies are your friends. Particularly :rolleyes: or 
, or heck even :dubious: or :smack: would have made the point.
Hmmm…interesting.
You posted junk, backed off, and then when someone bailed you out you claimed credit for being right.
Ironically, isn’t that what you’re blaming Bush for? Just curious, dontcha know. :dubious:
All,
Can someone help me out here?
I wasn’t trying to wade in on one side of the argument or the other, in fact my first thought was scepticism since I wasn’t aware that Kate Adie was working for the BBC anymore, and was just curious to find out whether it was correct or not. But I tracked down the original Radio show on the RTE site after I had a bit more of a search around;
http://www.rte.ie/news/journal/av_wk1.html
So, whilst the GuluFuture article seems to be satire, it seems to be sourced from an original radio interview.
There is also some additional on this (found using GoogleNews) from MSNBC (you’ll have to help me with how reputable this site is);
This doesn’t seem anywhere near as strongly worded as the original radio transcript.
Has anyone else come up with anything else on this story? I don’t want to step on toes here, I’m just trying to find out which side of the story is correct!
Both and neither grey_ideas. All news reports have an editorial slant (or bias). Two people will here the same thing and come away with interpretations on what was said.
Oh dear oh dear. I seem to just not be having a lot of luck communicating today. Undaunted, I will struggle on.
Sequence of events as I see them:
[ul]
[li]I dash off an OP sharing an interesting article that someone had forwarded me. In hindsight, this could have used much more context.[/li][li]Knee jerk conservative condemn the article and obviously false because if comes from a liberal source.[/li][li] Much hilarity.[/li][li]I attempt to clarify that I am not presenting this as “news” or as some grandiose point in a Great Debate; rather, I was simply sharing an article.[/li][li]Another poster indicates that the article may have validity, prompting me to make fun of the folks that had assumed that it was false because it came from a lefty or liberal source.[/li][li]This gets me accused of being a hypocrite.[/li][/ul]
So this is the thing; Fuck you.
No, I condemned it because it was on a parody sight that rivals the Weekly World News in veracity, then you tried to play it off as a joke, then when you found out it wasn’t a joke you claimed victory, then I made an analogy to what the liberals have been saying about Bush this whole time, since you claim to be one.
That’s pretty much the timeline.
Don’t think your revisionist version will be believed, since the evidence of your bullshit is all right here.
So, can you read Binarydrone? Or are you just a fucking idiot in general?
Find me one person who stated that the link wasn’t reliable becasue it was lefty? It was stated because it had obvious satire and joke articles such as the eating babies one and the nuclear option for Serbian-begun WWIII.
I repeat, you are a moron.
D_Odds,
Thanks. What I was really worried about there was that I had stumbled into a very elaborate hoax and not realised it. It’s been a long day at work and my brain is a little frazzled right now.
Still being new here, although I’ve tried to sit quiet and just read for a while now, it can be pretty intimidating to post and then think that what I’ve posted was totally wrong…
grey_ideas
Quickly rescanning the thread, I don’t see “knee jerk conservative” condemnation. I see people (self included, and I’m as middle of the road as they come) refuting a knee jerk anti-military article that, at first glance, appears authentic. Knowing that site is satire, or just very biased, very poor reporting, I make a tongue-in-cheek proclamation (hoping the sentence gave away the levity).
I will agree with your first point. You could have supplied more context. Reading the OP (all 10 words, including title), my first though is that you are pitting the article. I assumed you were in line with the article against the military (but I shouldn’t assume, so my bad).
You know what guys, I will admit that I leaped to the conclusion that the reason that folks immediately dissed the link and what it was saying was of a liberal slant (and therefore made the assumption that they were conservative). So, you know what I am going to do about it? I am going to apologize. I know that this is rare around here, but what the hell.
To anyone whose post I misinterpreted: Please accept me apologies.
I want to make clear that I am not trying to “pass anything off as a joke”, and then “claim some sort of victory”, though I can see how you could interpreter things that way.
All of that being said, a special thanks to Airman Doors, USAF for assuming the worst of me, and to Neurotik for being a rude dick.
Oh that’s rich.
Other then that, this is all much ado about nothing. You posted the link for “hey check out this fucked up link” purposes.
Ah yes, because I was the first one to tell everyone “Fuck you.”
Is playing the poor, abused, misunderstood martyr fun? Just curious.