Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by evolu, May 10, 2004.
...but are tired of it's slant to the Right,
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.
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?"
So you want us to check out something that's slanted to the Left.
That link, like all news sites, is biased.
Thanks, but I believe I'll stick with the real thing, Drudge.
Yup, for people who like to drink from open sewers, there's nothing quite like it.
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?
What's your alternative, read nothing? That seems more biased than reading as much as possible.
Ha - apparently Drudgereport linked to an article on informationclearinghouse.info and the site has been suspended. Too funny.
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.
So which ones do you recommend?
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.
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.
Let me ask you this: Why did you feel compelled to seek out this video and watch it?
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?
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.
in searching for the video, which I didn't find, discovered this report in the phillipines about their problems with al-qaeda.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't it a brutal murder whether you look at it or read about it?
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...