Sky News = Propoganda

bonkey

The reports are mixed. What I saw a lot on google news yesterday were reports that the commander in charge of the situation was overheard saying "a family is f***ing dead becuase you didnt fire a f***ing warning shot soon enough".

Apparently, after the warning shot was fired, and ignored, they want for the engine block, and when that failed, they sprayed the van.

Taking out the driver would require a sniper, and a damned fine shot at that, and you just dont have those lying aroung like Hollywood would have us believe.

As I mentioned somewhere else though...ask yourself what you would do if fleeing from oppression, and someone of your "rescuers" started firing as you approached? How will you know its a warning shot, and what would your reaction be. Mine sure as hell wouldnt be to stop to let the next bullets definitely hit.

jc

LizardKing

A few things that bugged me about Skys Coverage both TV and Via Web Page
- They Tell us of Great Advances by the "Coalition Forces"
yet they talk of bad stuff "friendly fire", "market place bombing" "US Checkpoint" etc. as "US Attacks" , surely these "mistakes" should be blamed on the "Coalition" as a whole and not single entities....

- There website has started listing US Newspaper frontpages which is fair enough , however most of them are Pro War; I did find it odd that in the UK newspapers section they had stopped listing "The Mirror" ( an openly anti-war paper ) - I sent them a mail complaining and asking why they did this, and to my surprise the next day it was back

Is anyone sick of the "BREAKING NEWS : explosions heard in baghdad" - its being blitzed nearly constantly so this is kinda old news now.....

Also the Ticker tape thingy is starting to wreck the head big time (IMO) ....

Kell

My personal favoutire coverage is by Channel 4 news. They seem to be the only ones actively questioning reports by the UK and US military that they have killed x amount and taken y town by force. What got me watching this coverage was when one of the presenters was talking about the capture of Umm Qasar (sorry about the spelling) saying that the US still hadn't declared it as a safe zone when they QUOTE "said that this place had been pacified two days ago".

Anyway, IMHO if ye want balanced reporting and reporting that questions the propaganda tune in to 4 -

K

Victor

Originally posted by LizardKing
Is anyone sick of the "BREAKING NEWS : explosions heard in baghdad" - its being blitzed nearly constantly so this is kinda old news now.....

People dying isn't old news. More people dying isn't old news either.

Originally posted by Kell
What got me watching this coverage was when one of the presenters was talking about the capture of Umm Qasar (sorry about the spelling) saying that the US still hadn't declared it as a safe zone when they QUOTE "said that this place had been pacified two days ago".

There are differences between "have reached", "atacked", "entered", "taken", "occupied" and "pacified". The problem is the journalists are too optimistic in their reports and use one / two levels above the actual so they can get a scoop or in the case of the press, so they can feel up to date.

Duffman

There's an incredible amount of propaganda inherent in Sky coverage without a doubt..

I had almost lost all respect for their reporters until I watched a recent report about the US attack on a settlement near Babylon where cluster bombs had been used.. For once the reporter (David Chater or some such punter) actually made an effort to expose the excessive and indiscrimate force being used the allies.. After the usual equivocation about the use of these bombs from centcomm. he visited a civilian area where entire families had been killed and displayed cluster fragments for the camera..

Just can't understand how people can accept the use of weapons which by their nature are guaranteed to massacre civilians..

Victor

Originally posted by Duffman
Just can't understand how people can accept the use of weapons which by their nature are guaranteed to massacre civilians..

By usage, not nature. They are "safe" to use in the desert or airfields, not towns.

Duffman

Originally posted by Victor
By usage, not nature. They are "safe" to use in the desert or airfields, not towns.

I don't agree... unexploded cluster fragments remain a potential threat regardless of where they are used...

Victor

Originally posted by Duffman
I don't agree... unexploded cluster fragments remain a potential threat regardless of where they are used...

What is an "unexploded cluster fragments" either it is "unexploded" or it is a "fragment". My point was that deserts and airfields tend not to have children running around them. And with little vegetation, they are much more obvious. Airfields also have the equipment to deal with them.

The MK-20 Rockeye is the one most commonly used by the Americans. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk20.htm

Duffman

Originally posted by Victor
What is an "unexploded cluster fragments"

When the US dropped cluster bombs on mountainous regions in Afghanistan, unexploded "bomblets" (if you prefer ) still managed to maim and kill children....

Originally posted by Victor
And with little vegetation, they are much more obvious.

Many of these casualties were children who decided to investigate these unusual, often brightly coloured objects which were visible due to the lack of vegetation...

The fact remains that the use of these weapons by forces that claim to be fighting a moral war cannot be justified...

Anyway, since cluster bombs during "surgical" strikes on settlements have not been effective, US forces are now considering the use of bulldozers, Israeli-style...

bonkey

Originally posted by Duffman
When the US dropped cluster bombs on mountainous regions in Afghanistan, unexploded "bomblets" (if you prefer ) still managed to maim and kill children....

Many of these casualties were children who decided to investigate these unusual, often brightly coloured objects which were visible due to the lack of vegetation...

Lets not forget that the bomblets dropped in Iraq were virtually indistinguishable from the aid packages also dropped in the same campaign.

However, bombs are not sentient. They have no "nature", so it cant be that they are guaranteed to do anything "by their nature". It is the nature in which they are used - a fine distinction, but one which theoretically shifts blame from the manufaturer/designer to the deployer.

jc
jc

Duffman

Originally posted by bonkey

However, bombs are not sentient. They have no "nature", so it cant be that they are guaranteed to do anything "by their nature". It is the nature in which they are used - a fine distinction, but one which theoretically shifts blame from the manufaturer/designer to the deployer.

I stand pointlessly corrected

Victor

All I'm asking is that if you want to use technical word in emotive ways, at least use them correctly.

Originally posted by Duffman
Anyway, since cluster bombs during "surgical" strikes on settlements have not been effective

Cluster bombs are area weapons and no one has ever suggested their use was surgical, if they had, they were wrong.

Originally posted by bonkey
Lets not forget that the bomblets dropped in Iraq were virtually indistinguishable from the aid packages also dropped in the same campaign.

You mean Afghanistan.

Duffman

They have and, yes, they are wrong..

Kell

Sorry lads (Duffman, Bonkey & Victor) but can we get away from the semantics and get back on topic here which is not the use of X bomb whether it's sentient or not it's about the propagandist nature of the bullshít thats being piped into our house every minute of the day.

K-

bonkey

Good point. Shame on me

(and yes, I did mean Afghanistan...sorry about that).