CNN held this back.....

enaena
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This link tells a creepy tale (written by a CNN guy) of how CNN could not report the news the world needed to know. Apparently they were so compromised that at one point and could not report that one of their cameramen was tortured for weeks---to make him confess that the lead CNN guy in Baghdad was a CIA operative.



this link



The press has its limitations folks, sometimes what you don't know shapes your worldview more than what you are told---or allowed to see.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Yeah, I read that this morning. Freaky stuff. Of course...never mind.



    Coolest thing? It IS in the New York Times, so it will be viewed as very real and very accurate by one fella in particular here. And the guy writing it was from CNN and not the dreaded Fox News! So, we've got THAT going for us here...







    In any case, the fact that it's in the end-all/be-all newspaper of record should carry some weight here or actually mean something. It's not as if this story was found on Art Bell's website or liddy.com.



  • Reply 2 of 19
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    I stand that what the US and UK coalition is doing is just based on human interest alone within Iraq. Saddam was a very evil man.



    May the Iraqi people have a wonderful future ahead!!!!!!!!



    Fellowship
  • Reply 3 of 19
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,122member
    I think that in the next weeks, more several stories about Saddam's regime will be released. The wall of silence is broken, people will start to speak in Iraq.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    I stand that what the US and UK coalition is doing is just based on human interest alone within Iraq. Saddam was a very evil man.



    This is flawed logic... sorry.



    I see a lot of "everybody agrees that Saddam sucked" in the days ahead.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    This is flawed logic... sorry.



    I see a lot of "everybody agrees that Saddam sucked" in the days ahead.




    New if you really knew me you would not question my motives.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 6 of 19
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    New if you really knew me you would not question my motives.



    Fellowship




    I don't question your motives...



    And you don't question the motives of the war...



  • Reply 7 of 19
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Of course they will, Powerdoc! And that will make those of us who supported and believed in this action feel even better about doing so.



    The one big thing about this whole deal that kinda sticks at me is that the party or group that has always traditionally stood for human rights and seems to have cornered the market on compassion, tolerance and understanding were SUCH hinderances and roadblocks to all this.



    I kept waiting for the Left to go "those people are suffering! This is a just cause...free them!".



    They never really did. Not in great numbers and certainly not the visible leadership.







    Then the cynical part of me kicks in and goes "if Mr. Clinton were President right now, he would be backed and praised to high heaven by the very ones - Daschle, Pelosi, Rangel, et al - who gave (and still give) Bush such hellacious grief. He would be hailed as the "great liberator" and his approval numbers would be through the roof and all of Hollywood would be sucking up to him more than they usually did.



    No one here can tell me that if this was "their boy" presiding over all this, that Pelosi would be saying "we could've done this better..." or Daschle would've talked about our president's "miserable failure of diplomacy". Or that Sheen, Garafolo and Streisand would be saying all the things about him that they said about Bush. They'd be in tears, talking about "my President has made me so happy, as a human being, an artist and a member of the world community..." or whatever. AND I'd be willing to bet my next 4 paychecks that more than a few members here at AI would be calling this the "greatest military action in modern history".







    You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.



    [note: the above is NOT a ding at President Clinton. I think he probably WOULD'VE done something about it (if only for political, popularity hay). But he would've acted, I'm sure. My beef is with the partisan, two-faced elements who live by the "when our guy does it it's cool, noble and we're fully on board...when yours does it, it's a tragic affront to humanity and the U.N." belief system. ]
  • Reply 8 of 19
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    We're back to "conditions of democracy in Iraq" again.



    Sorry, this is not the end.



    Its not even the beginning of the end.



    But it is... nevermind...



  • Reply 9 of 19
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Yeah, I read that this morning. Freaky stuff. Of course...never mind.



    Coolest thing? It IS in the New York Times, so it will be viewed as very real and very accurate by one fella in particular here. And the guy writing it was from CNN and not the dreaded Fox News! So, we've got THAT going for us here...







    In any case, the fact that it's in the end-all/be-all newspaper of record should carry some weight here or actually mean something. It's not as if this story was found on Art Bell's website or liddy.com.




    You mean Saddam was a cruel dictator?! And Uday was crazy?! And all along I thought...



    You really like arguing with the straw men in your head, don't you, pscates?
  • Reply 10 of 19
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,122member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates



    I kept waiting for the Left to go "those people are suffering! This is a just cause...free them!".



    They never really did. Not in great numbers and certainly not the visible leadership.





    Unfortunately, The Iraq war, was not presented in the early stages, like a war for freedoom, but a war against a threat : forbidden WOMD in iraq. The official reason for this war, was the resolution 1441, a resolution speaking of WOMD but not of dictatorship. At this time, like any others europeans people, i use to think that war was not necessary at this time to make respect the UN resolutions. The coalition decided otherwise and the war started. This war was a military sucess until today.





    The problem is that i don't see many WOMD for the moment. In fact i am surprised, i was thinking that more WOMD will be discovered (biological and chemical). There is still time to check, but for the moment the results are not big. If this war had for only goal WOMD it's a failure.

    In an other way, something good result of this war, the liberation of the Iraqi people, something that is more important for me, than some crappy french oil contract or debt with a dictator. And yes, the war (if the post war is well managed) is a good thing for that.



    In short i vote yes for a war for freedoom, and no for a war against WOMD. Presenting this war, for a war against WOMD was wrong at the eye of the public opinion, at least for my self. I am happy for the Iraqi people, i expect that the coalition will suceed the management of the post war, something that may be more difficult than the war itself.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,447member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Unfortunately, The Iraq war, was not presented in the early stages, like a war for freedoom, but a war against a threat : forbidden WOMD in iraq. The official reason for this war, was the resolution 1441, a resolution speaking of WOMD but not of dictatorship. At this time, like any others europeans people, i use to think that war was not necessary at this time to make respect the UN resolutions. The coalition decided otherwise and the war started. This war was a military sucess until today.





    The problem is that i don't see many WOMD for the moment. In fact i am surprised, i was thinking that more WOMD will be discovered (biological and chemical). There is still time to check, but for the moment the results are not big. If this war had for only goal WOMD it's a failure.

    In an other way, something good result of this war, the liberation of the Iraqi people, something that is more important for me, than some crappy french oil contract or debt with a dictator. And yes, the war (if the post war is well managed) is a good thing for that.



    In short i vote yes for a war for freedoom, and no for a war against WOMD. Presenting this war, for a war against WOMD was wrong at the eye of the public opinion, at least for my self. I am happy for the Iraqi people, i expect that the coalition will suceed the management of the post war, something that may be more difficult than the war itself.




    I am sure in the end that these will be found as well. If they couldn't report information or intelligence relating to the murdering of brothers-in-law and torturing of camera operators (see how PC I am ) then it is obvious they could not have gotten information out or even asked about regarding Anthrax, dirty nukes, various gases and things of that nature.



    Now that the threat is gone, I have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items.



    The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy.



    Nick

    (betting on a middle-east dominos game)
  • Reply 12 of 19
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    (betting on a middle-east dominos game)




    I'm hoping we don't have a domino effect....
  • Reply 13 of 19
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    I stand that what the US and UK coalition is doing is just based on human interest alone within Iraq. Saddam was a very evil man.



    May the Iraqi people have a wonderful future ahead!!!!!!!!



    Fellowship




    There is a little something called self-interest which fuels every decision made by every country. Yes, I said every.



    If it's human interest alone, I expect us to invade Rwanda, The Ivory Coast, Burma, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and oh about 150 other countries. Of course, that's only after we invade the downtowns of our biggest cities to root out homelessness and crime here.



    GIVE ME A GOD DAMN BREAK FELLOWSHIP.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'm hoping we don't have a domino effect....



    We sure set a scary precedent. I had no doubt something like this would happen. Let's hope we can avert this crisis before it starts...hey...we should just pre-emptively strike India for talking about pre-emptively striking Pakistan!
  • Reply 15 of 19
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    ...hey...we should just pre-emptively strike India for talking about pre-emptively striking Pakistan!



    If that weren't so scary it'd be even funnier than it is.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    speaking of repercussions, anyone notice what's happening in cuba or zimbabwe?
  • Reply 17 of 19
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Of course they will, Powerdoc! And that will make those of us who supported and believed in this action feel even better about doing so.



    The one big thing about this whole deal that kinda sticks at me is that the party or group that has always traditionally stood for human rights and seems to have cornered the market on compassion, tolerance and understanding were SUCH hinderances and roadblocks to all this.



    I kept waiting for the Left to go "those people are suffering! This is a just cause...free them!".



    They never really did. Not in great numbers and certainly not the visible leadership.







    Then the cynical part of me kicks in and goes "if Mr. Clinton were President right now, he would be backed and praised to high heaven by the very ones - Daschle, Pelosi, Rangel, et al - who gave (and still give) Bush such hellacious grief. He would be hailed as the "great liberator" and his approval numbers would be through the roof and all of Hollywood would be sucking up to him more than they usually did.



    No one here can tell me that if this was "their boy" presiding over all this, that Pelosi would be saying "we could've done this better..." or Daschle would've talked about our president's "miserable failure of diplomacy". Or that Sheen, Garafolo and Streisand would be saying all the things about him that they said about Bush. They'd be in tears, talking about "my President has made me so happy, as a human being, an artist and a member of the world community..." or whatever. AND I'd be willing to bet my next 4 paychecks that more than a few members here at AI would be calling this the "greatest military action in modern history".







    You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.



    [note: the above is NOT a ding at President Clinton. I think he probably WOULD'VE done something about it (if only for political, popularity hay). But he would've acted, I'm sure. My beef is with the partisan, two-faced elements who live by the "when our guy does it it's cool, noble and we're fully on board...when yours does it, it's a tragic affront to humanity and the U.N." belief system. ]




    Amen amen amen. Yeah, that's right, I reposted the whole damn thing because it's THAT dead on.



    Speaking of celebrities, why hasn't Streisand left the country yet? In 2000 she told reporters that if Bush were elected, she'd leave the country. Well I did my part, cast my vote, but the bitch is still here. Hmmm... perhaps I can sue for breach of contract.



    PS. can anyone verify my recollection of the Streisand statement? I'll be honest, I'm too lazy/busy (an interesting combination, I assure you) to go looking for a link.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Unfortunately, The Iraq war, was not presented in the early stages, like a war for freedoom... <snip>



    ... In short i vote yes for a war for freedoom, and no for a war against WOMD. Presenting this war, for a war against WOMD was wrong at the eye of the public opinion, at least for my self. I am happy for the Iraqi people, i expect that the coalition will suceed the management of the post war, something that may be more difficult than the war itself.




    One of the UN resolutions against Iraq called for Saddam to stop mistreating his people but we all know how seriously the UN took it's resolutions. The UN wouldn't have signed off on a war of liberation either.



    This story underscores what a lowlife Peter Arnett is. He wasn't unaware of any of this when he gave that interview. Instead he happily helped the Iraqis to whitewash the story.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates



    I kept waiting for the Left to go "those people are suffering! This is a just cause...free them!".



    They never really did. Not in great numbers and certainly not the visible leadership.




    That's because 'the left' isn't as dumb as you pretend. You cast them in a negative light for your straw men arguments, but it's a caricature. It's why I said you're a liar. This is a great example.



    Now, you're not lying in the traditional sense. I mean, your words are meant to deceive, but not outright 'lie' like 'I did not have sexual relations with that girl.' Instead you frame some things as a joke, or douse them with sarcasm. Other times you post completely off topic with imaginary quotes that, quite naturally, put those opposed to your ideology in a negative and stupid light.



    In any case, why on earth would you expect 'the left' to go on like you say? What would give you the impression that they blindly follow a cause like this? Why wouldn't they instead be interested in using law and order (they do supposedly like lawyers) to achieve their goal rather than brute force (traditionally conservatives do love the police and military) as you suggest?
Sign In or Register to comment.