For those of you who read Drudgereport

[evolu]

...but are tired of it's slant to the Right,

www.informationclearinghouse.info

Let's discuss.

[rainman::|:|]

this site, rense.com, and whatreallyhappened.com are sites that do pick up on some good stories, especially international, that don't get any airtime here. Unfortunately they blend it with a strong dose of paranoia that makes me not trust any of them. But if you go in prepared for that, there is definitely some interesting stuff.

these sites are attacked quite often for having anti-semitic views... i mean, to draw attention to the Palestinian argument is good, and to point out that there are extensive ties between israel and the US, especially enemies of Israel that became our enemies during the war on terror, seems pretty reasonable. But then they go on a rant condemning a huge chunk of the Jewish population as "zionists" and blurring the line between geopolitics and religious doctrine. That's where i start getting apprehensive. I mean, the idea that Israel is a "bad" country is something i would agree with, considering they hold the record for violations of UN mandates. But to say that the Jewish people are bad? i don't think so. clearly governments operate outside of the interests of their people, quite often at that. there needs to be separation in their arguments.

i'm not trying to start an israel/palestinian argument in here, so please don't start flaming. Just using my views of it to illustrate my opinion of these sites.

paul

[MacFan26]

I think it's great to have other news sites trying to tell more of the story than the big media stations. It's too bad that people don't/can't trust what they hear on the news anymore. Shouldn't that be the point? Ugh, it makes me feel like Indiana Jones when Donovan says "Didn't I tell you not to trust anyone Dr. Jones?"

[Juventuz]

...but are tired of it's slant to the Right,

www.informationclearinghouse.info

Let's discuss.

So you want us to check out something that's slanted to the Left.

That link, like all news sites, is biased.

[JPGR_Fan]

Thanks, but I believe I'll stick with the real thing, Drudge. (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks, but I believe I'll stick with the real thing, Drudge. (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

Yup, for people who like to drink from open sewers, there's nothing quite like it.

[evolu]

this site, rense.com, and whatreallyhappened.com are sites that do pick up on some good stories, especially international, that don't get any airtime here. Unfortunately they blend it with a strong dose of paranoia that makes me not trust any of them. But if you go in prepared for that, there is definitely some interesting stuff.

these sites are attacked quite often for having anti-semitic views... i mean, to draw attention to the Palestinian argument is good, and to point out that there are extensive ties between israel and the US, especially enemies of Israel that became our enemies during the war on terror, seems pretty reasonable. But then they go on a rant condemning a huge chunk of the Jewish population as "zionists" and blurring the line between geopolitics and religious doctrine. That's where i start getting apprehensive. I mean, the idea that Israel is a "bad" country is something i would agree with, considering they hold the record for violations of UN mandates. But to say that the Jewish people are bad? i don't think so. clearly governments operate outside of the interests of their people, quite often at that. there needs to be separation in their arguments.

i'm not trying to start an israel/palestinian argument in here, so please don't start flaming. Just using my views of it to illustrate my opinion of these sites.

paul

I think most people are aware that some of the greatest critics of Israeli government policies are the Israeli people themselves.

I haven't seen any articles on this website spitting anti-semitic views. I wouldn't have offered the link if it did.

By the way, it's a bit naive to think that geopolitics and religious doctrine are not intertwined. Do I really need to site examples?

[evolu]

So you want us to check out something that's slanted to the Left.

That link, like all news sites, is biased.

What's your alternative, read nothing? That seems more biased than reading as much as possible.

[evolu]

Ha - apparently Drudgereport linked to an article on informationclearinghouse.info and the site has been suspended. Too funny.

[Juventuz]

What's your alternative, read nothing? That seems more biased than reading as much as possible.

I tend to read more centrist news sites. I don't go for the rah-rah, pro-US sites nor the rabid anti-US sites.

[mactastic]

I tend to read more centrist news sites.

So which ones do you recommend?

[Juventuz]

BBC
Reuters
NPR

Are my top 3

[mactastic]

BBC
Reuters
NPR

Are my top 3

Sly, what do you think of these? Centrist? Left-leaning?

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Juventuz
BBC
Reuters
NPR

Are my top 3

Sly, what do you think of these? Centrist? Left-leaning?
Reuters and BBC I use myself although sometimes BBC can lean a bit to the left.
NPR is most deffinitely left-wing.

[Thomas Veil]

Yeah, well, uh...

informationclearinghouse.info has got the video of Nick Berg being beheaded.

Call it what you will, there ain't no "slant" to that. It's just f---ing maddening.

No "mad" smilie can come even close to depicting what I feel after seeing that.

[IJ Reilly]

No "mad" smilie can come even close to depicting what I feel after seeing that.

Let me ask you this: Why did you feel compelled to seek out this video and watch it?

[Thomas Veil]

I suppose it was part morbid curiosity, and part wanting to see the plain, unvarnished truth for myself, no matter how gruesome. Written descriptions pale compared to actually seeing the horror for yourself.

I actually didn't have to "seek out" that video very far. The link is on their front page.

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose it was part morbid curiosity, and part wanting to see the plain, unvarnished truth for myself, no matter how gruesome. Written descriptions pale compared to actually seeing the horror for yourself.

I actually didn't have to "seek out" that video very far. The link is on their front page.

Thanks for the candid answer. I suppose my morbid curiosity is limited to trying to understand why people have a morbid curiosity. So, did seeing this with your own eyes add anything to your understanding of the event?

[evolu]

Yes - the BBC is my homepage, but there are too many articles that don't make the mainstream news. It's best to read as much as possible. I try and ignore any "slant" I read. It says more about those who are pushing their slanted view than anything.

Any news site where the advertisements are bigger than the news should be avoided IMO.

[Voltron]

in searching for the video, which I didn't find, discovered this report in the phillipines about their problems with al-qaeda.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1829211.stm

The Philippine Government has broadcast a video-tape showing Muslim extremists beheading captured government soldiers with machetes.

I realized after I posted this it brings up another point. Those who say the beheading and terrorist activities going on in Iraq wouldn't be going on in Iraq are right. Instead they would be going on elsewhere more than they already are. Because we went into Iraq the terrorist concentrated on us there and may have saved several lives elsewhere.

Also even with as much terrorism now concentrated in Iraq others are still having similar problems. Others who aren't involved in Iraq who "did nothing to aggravate them" are dealing with terrorism from the very same elements. Muslim extremists trying to push their way of life on everyone.

[skunk]

Also even with as much terrorism now concentrated in Iraq others are still having similar problems. Others who aren't involved in Iraq who "did nothing to aggravate them" are dealing with terrorism from the very same elements. Muslim extremists trying to push their way of life on everyone.
Oh dear, you ARE confused, aren't you? You start a global war, you get hit anywhere on earth. Crusader extremists, trying to push your way of life on everyone.

[Thomas Veil]

So, did seeing this with your own eyes add anything to your understanding of the event?
I honestly think I can say it did. When first reading about it, I thought Mr. Berg died quickly. I hardly expected to see him screaming for so long. It's almost as if the ----ers took their time beheading him.

[Voltron]

Oh dear, you ARE confused, aren't you? You start a global war, you get hit anywhere on earth. Crusader extremists, trying to push your way of life on everyone.
That doesn't explain the terrorist problems in Palestine, Cheznya, or allot of other places. This problem has been going on now for decades. The activity in the Phillipines has nothing to do with the "war on terrorism". The terrorist have declared war on the world a long time ago.

[IJ Reilly]

I honestly think I can say it did. When first reading about it, I thought Mr. Berg died quickly. I hardly expected to see him screaming for so long. It's almost as if the ----ers took their time beheading him.

Wasn't it a brutal murder whether you look at it or read about it?

[blackfox]

That doesn't explain the terrorist problems in Palestine, Cheznya, or allot of other places. This problem has been going on now for decades. The activity in the Phillipines has nothing to do with the "war on terrorism". The terrorist have declared war on the world a long time ago.
What does explain the events you list above is that in each instance they are fighting a more powerful, richer, more organized, entrenched, and technologically/militarily advanced foe. These are usually state governments; Palestinians/Isrealis...Czchyna/Russia...muslim separatists/Phillipines...etc. The defining characteristic is that each group is fighting for their right to self-determination, by whatever means necessary. To fight a superior force, you utilize guerilla tactics and/or use terrorism which is designed to literally invoke "terror" in your enemy by its' seemingly random nature and terrible violence...as a means to demoralize or confuse your foe. It also usually leads to escalation...Al Qaeda is slightly different than those you listed as their battle does not involve any territory per se, but still involves the right to self determination as Muslims(their brand) against the hegemony of western values...I leave opinion of these matters out of this, just a little primer - take as you will...

[SPG]

Those who say the beheading and terrorist activities going on in Iraq wouldn't be going on in Iraq are right. Instead they would be going on elsewhere more than they already are. Because we went into Iraq the terrorist concentrated on us there and may have saved several lives elsewhere.
...
Muslim extremists trying to push their way of life on everyone.

Ahh the "flypaper theory". Terorism is not a zero sum game. It's not as if there is an army of 10,000 terrorists and now they have to spread their forces across two fronts. However WE DO have a fixed number of forces and resources that WE are spreading thin across two fronts. For example, the specialized troops that were tracking Bin Laden in Afghanistan were pulled out to look for Saddam Hussein in Iraq, intelligence forces were pulled from counter terrorism to Iraq invasion duties. Hundreds of billions are being spent on the snipe hunt in Iraq and what have we gotten? A load of pissed off Iraqis who didn't have the means or intent to kill americans, now have the means and ability to kill US troops and contractors.
They weren't terrorists last year. They wouldn't be terrorists this year if we hadn't invaded.

[Voltron]

Ahh the "flypaper theory". Terorism is not a zero sum game. It's not as if there is an army of 10,000 terrorists and now they have to spread their forces across two fronts. However WE DO have a fixed number of forces and resources that WE are spreading thin across two fronts. For example, the specialized troops that were tracking Bin Laden in Afghanistan were pulled out to look for Saddam Hussein in Iraq, intelligence forces were pulled from counter terrorism to Iraq invasion duties. Hundreds of billions are being spent on the snipe hunt in Iraq and what have we gotten? A load of pissed off Iraqis who didn't have the means or intent to kill americans, now have the means and ability to kill US troops and contractors.
They weren't terrorists last year. They wouldn't be terrorists this year if we hadn't invaded.
Terrorism is a zero sum game. They are having problems finding people willing to kill themselves that they had to change their strategy slightly in order to stretch out their manpower slightly.

[IJ Reilly]

Ahh the "flypaper theory".

I think of this as the Rotary Club theory. There's only so many members in the world, if you could just get them all in one place, and start shooting, you might be able to wipe out the entire organization. Right. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that "membership" in radical Islamic organizations has tripled since the Iraq invasion, if only because it made Osama look like a prophet.

[evolu]

Terrorism is a zero sum game. They are having problems finding people willing to kill themselves that they had to change their strategy slightly in order to stretch out their manpower slightly.

Until we give them great recruiting methods, like photos of our soldiers abusing muslims - having no respect for their customs. Don't forget, the Red Cross estimated that 70-90% of the Iraqi detainees were innocent. This number came from talking with the US military.

THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO THIS WAR!

The more we fight, the more they resist. Hell, I would too! If 130,000 Iraqi troops landed in los angeles, I'd have my own Jihad brewing.

America needs to get back to what it does best: diplomacy. That, of course, would take a president who could actually earn back the respect of our much needed allies. That would NOT be Bush.

All we need is one military force from a muslim nation (not saudi arabia) as a part of a broader UN coalition to take a non military role in allowing the Iraqi infastructure to build enough to allow elections.

There are many reasons why the present US administration won't (voluntarily) let this happen.

[Voltron]

America needs to get back to what it does best: diplomacy. That, of course, would take a president who could actually earn back the respect of our much needed allies. That would NOT be Bush.


Wrong, what America has always done best is pay people off. That is something I was getting sick of. And yes Bush has that problem too.

[poopyhead]

Wrong, what America has always done best is pay people off. That is something I was getting sick of. And yes Bush has that problem too.

Speaking of Ray Gun?

[evolu]

Wrong, what America has always done best is pay people off. That is something I was getting sick of. And yes Bush has that problem too.

Diplomacy is paying people off without making them feel like they are being coerced. Bush just coerces them - alienating and offending most of our allies.

Thank God he hasn't pissed off Micronesia yet.

:p

[Thomas Veil]

Wasn't it a brutal murder whether you look at it or read about it?
If it'd been instantaneous, like the guillotine, I would've at least been grateful that it was over swiftly.

[evolu]

here are some reactions from the middle eastern press to N Berg's murder:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=71763

[IJ Reilly]

If it'd been instantaneous, like the guillotine, I would've at least been grateful that it was over swiftly.

You're kind of avoiding my question. I'm not trying to make you wriggle here, I'm sincerely attempting to determine what useful information about this event you gleaned from watching this video.

[Thomas Veil]

You're kind of avoiding my question. I'm not trying to make you wriggle here, I'm sincerely attempting to determine what useful information about this event you gleaned from watching this video.
Exactly how much the poor guy was made to suffer when he died. My reaction to seeing it is even more extreme than it was merely reading about it.

I don't know, it's hard to quantify. Was everyone satisfied to simply read about 9/11 in the paper the day after? No, we flocked to our TVs to see it for ourselves.

[IJ Reilly]

Exactly how much the poor guy was made to suffer when he died. My reaction to seeing it is even more extreme than it was merely reading about it.

I don't know, it's hard to quantify. Was everyone satisfied to simply read about 9/11 in the paper the day after? No, we flocked to our TVs to see it for ourselves.

I'm not sure that analogy works for me. The 9-11 events were happening in real time. Live coverage of them could not be avoided short of sequestering one's self in a cave. OTOH, you had to go looking for the decapitation video because none of the domestic TV news networks ran it. Understand, I'm not being critical here -- like I said before, maybe I've just got a morbid curiosity about morbid curiosity.

[skunk]

I'm not sure that analogy works for me. The 9-11 events were happening in real time. Live coverage of them could not be avoided short of sequestering one's self in a cave. OTOH, you had to go looking for the decapitation video because none of the domestic TV news networks ran it. Understand, I'm not being critical here -- like I said before, maybe I've just got a morbid curiosity about morbid curiosity.
Would you be happy if the other 1,800 photos of AG were never seen by anyone other than Congress? We need to know what we are dealing with here, not just hear it from others. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[IJ Reilly]

Would you be happy if the other 1,800 photos of AG were never seen by anyone other than Congress? We need to know what we are dealing with here, not just hear it from others. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Personally, I don't need to see any more of these photos. They've become a distraction from the main event, which is what happened in these prisons, and who should be held responsible for what happened.

Earlier, I was trying to describe the trap created by this focus on visual evidence, which ironically has been exploited by both the administration and the terrorists. It's the "if I haven't seen the pictures it didn't happen" trap. We've seen Bush and Rumsfeld try to dodge responsibility for the maltreatment of prisoners simply because they hadn't seen the pictures, and had only heard about the reports, which the ICRC had been sending them since last year at least.

[skunk]

Earlier, I was trying to describe the trap created by this focus on visual evidence, which ironically has been exploited by both the administration and the terrorists. It's the "if I haven't seen the pictures it didn't happen" trap.
But it works both ways: even war-supporters, when faced with this barrage of evidence, are beginning to realize that this is endemic, systematic and wrong. No amount of "left-wing propaganda" would convince them as well. The camera has a degree of objectivity which cannot be easily dismissed.

[IJ Reilly]

But it works both ways: even war-supporters, when faced with this barrage of evidence, are beginning to realize that this is endemic, systematic and wrong. No amount of "left-wing propaganda" would convince them as well. The camera has a degree of objectivity which cannot be easily dismissed.

Your point is taken, but I'd respond that the presence or absence of photographic evidence isn't a stand-in for the presence or absence of evidence, let alone, the event itself. Demanding visual evidence has become kind of cultural conceit of ours. And yet, we've still got many holocaust deniers in our midst, despite the mountains of visual evidence of the events. The fact remains, if a person chooses to deny the truth, photographs probably aren't going to persuade them.

Also, it's worth mentioning at least in passing, that photographs are not inherently objective. Lens are used to tell stories just as words are used to tell stories.

[pseudobrit]

Your point is taken, but I'd respond that the presence or absence of photographic evidence isn't a stand-in for the presence or absence of evidence, let alone, the event itself. Demanding visual evidence has become kind of cultural conceit of ours.

Now wait a minute here, let's edit that up a little...

"...the presence or absence of [edit] evidence isn't a stand-in for the presence or absence of evidence..."

Just because it's photographic means it somehow isn't the same as or is weighted less than other evidence? Evidence is evidence is evidence. I agree that it should not be demanded, but it's certainly got just as much potential influence as any other type of evidence.

Perhaps your quarrel is that photographic evidence trumps other, just as meaninful but less explosive evidence? I blame the undereducation and apathy of the average American.

And yet, we've still got many holocaust deniers in our midst, despite the mountains of visual evidence of the events. The fact remains, if a person chooses to deny the truth, photographs probably aren't going to persuade them.

There aren't many people who deny the holocaust. I'd like to see the figures on it, but I know it can't be a very large percentage.

[IJ Reilly]

Just because it's photographic means it somehow isn't the same as or is weighted less than other evidence? Evidence is evidence is evidence. I agree that it should not be demanded, but it's certainly got just as much potential influence as any other type of evidence.

Perhaps your quarrel is that photographic evidence trumps other, just as meaninful but less explosive evidence? I blame the undereducation and apathy of the average American.

Your last statement is essentially what I was trying to say.

[skunk]

Your last statement is essentially what I was trying to say.
Oh well then, we're all agreed! We'll have to find another thread. :D

[pseudobrit]

Your last statement is essentially what I was trying to say.

I'm glad I could illustrate your point a little better.