again. you know this how??
you admit that the news souces don’t have all info. But you believe that there’s nothing to hide because if there were, the news sources would be ‘all over it, front page stuff’. you don’t see that as a bit contradictory?
and while you’re making positive assertions, please prove that all the folks captured and sent to gitmo were captured during ‘during the war’ ‘fighting the coalition forces’. thanks.
We didn’t pick them up at the 7-11 in Hoboken, NJ. They were captured in Afghanistan, during the war. Can you prove otherwise?
I used to watch CNN for all my world news. These days, I prefer BBC World. Luckily, I can choose between both.
No, the BBC is not 100% “unbiased” - I don’t think any news station is. But the Beeb’s a hell of a lot more impartial than CNN, I’m sorry to say, on matters American AND non-American.
here apparently not all of 'em were combatants. Since we’re not allowed to know much about any of them at all, I find it really quite interesting that the US has sent several back home.
but of course you were the one to make the positive assertion that they were all armed combatants. It’s up to you to prove that.
Well I concede that there is no such thing as lack of editorial bias, but the BBC, despite what you may think, is almost totally editorially divorced from the government that funds it. And you’ll be disappointed to learn, most Irish people I know agree that it’s pretty neutral. In fact many Irish Dopers cite the BBC site for news about Northern Ireland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1038669.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/northern_ireland/2000/bloody_sunday_inquiry/default.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ni/first_migrations.shtml
3 equals several? I would call that a “few.”
And our news sources aren’t funded by the govt at all. I prefer that system, YMMV.
well, three certainly disproves your assertion of “all”. INteresting that you neglected to notice that.
and there’s only three that we’ve been allowed to know about currently.
It does vary, old chap, because there is a strict non-influence charter, which means the news service is not beholden to the government, nor big business or advertisers. Makes a world of difference.
Since you are so critical, I have to ask, what would you do differently? Give out Top-Secret info which could help future terrorists? Let 'em go, so they can return to Al-Queda, and killing Americans? What?
Amen.
Yeah right, regardless of your non-infulence charter, there is no way you can reasonably say that the BBC is not biased towards their source of funding. It’s not possible, in real life.
Which news source will get away with spreading spin and propaganda: a non-state sponsored station like CNN, or a state funded station like the BBC, paid for by all tax payers of the UK?
Think about it, don’t knee-jerk on the notion that tax money is involved. Think.
In my country, there’s both commercial stations and state sponsored channels. When it comes to political journalism, the state sponsored ones are far more impartial than the commercial ones. And they have to: they’re broadcasting using my, and everybody’s, funds.
The point is that the source of funding is all UK tax payers, not just the UK government. If the Beeb starts idolising Tony Blair, there’ll be Labour Party voters outside the studios demanding heads. And vice versa.
But you have the roles reversed. She wasn’t reinforcing my statement, as is portrayed here. And I know exactly what gods. Their fictional character (in my opinion) not withstanding. The piercing wit is totaly lost on me. I didn’t see it that way. Is it somehow ilogical for an atheist to talk about religion?
“Well, you’re about to bomb our country to bits and invade it, but gee willikers, I’m sure sad to see that something bad happened to you. Even though I might be violently killed in a few weeks by your government, I have nothing but good thoughts in my mind for you.”
So were those outraged by the statements expecting this instead?
milroyjstands out as a prime example that every asshole in Iraq has a corresponding asshole of opposite sign in America. And so the laws of physics are again confirmed. It is the symmetry of the universe.
If Iraq had levied the amount of devastation on the US, and was preparing to do so again, what would you as a citizen of US say or feel if it was an Iraqi space shuttle disaster? I don’t think the majority of americans would be remorseful, I think they would think that the Iraqi’s had it coming to them.
No I don’t Opalcat, after all she/he is complaining that the food she/he eats makes him/her fat because all her money goes to “mexican or Colombian”. Then she/he compared her taxes with economic sanctions against Cuba.
And yet I remember that I apologize not only to her but to everyone that read this thread for my response (which was very rude). Please read it again and if you think that I still owe her an apologize I will defer to your judgment and do so.
Since no moderator has closed this one I will have to answer my previous statement (under protest).
In desert storm we only saw what the pentangon showed us, I was 10 or 11 years old but I distinctly remember that the most dramatic shot was a penguin (or a similar bird) covered with oil. I am not and specialist in modern american bombs but I would like a cite that shows that they are 100% acurate because in that war all shots were bulleyes.
Information is controlled in a war, it is a necessity but please don’t expect me to believe a bunch of terrorists in uniform (according to Bush definition of terrorism a soldier=taliban).
p.s Johny be a good boy and recognize that zoe was very clever. If you are an atheist you don’t believe in any god. he/she/they/it simply (insert correct verb) not exist.
Well then, in your country, things are quite different. NPR, and to a lesser extent PBS, in this country, are slanted left. While that may be all fine and dandy with the SDMB, or Americans in general, it is NOT unbiased.