News Radovan Karadzic finally caught

[old.Tohtori]

Innocent dead is an innocent dead.

Perhaps best way to put my view out there.

"Horrible warcrime to kill 7500 innocents", sure.
"Just casualties of war half a mil dead by operation freedom", bull.

 

[Athrun]

Your choices didn't offer my point of view and i did answer.

well they were 2 simple questions..
either
1. you DID believe the UK major news reporters were knowingly involved in covers ups involving civilian deaths
or
2. you DID NOT believe the UK major news reporters were knowingly involved in cover ups involving civilian deaths
but w/e

I simply stated that you shouldn't blindly trust your own media, as HISTORY shows that the media has always been used for propaganda on nations own people and against the enemy.

I never said that i blindly trust my own media, but talking about "propoganda" and comparing it to something so huge as knowingly lieing about a cover up involving the reporters of the the UK with the UK military that involves civilian deaths .. well
and modern media is very different to what it was some hundred years ago so you cant really talk about the HISTORY of media and propoganda and compare it to what it is today

You really think the Iraqi insurgents are THAT bad?
You really think this Radovan guy was so "horrible"?
You really think Saddam was some mustard gas throwing lunatic?

er yea.. pretty much :/ saddam was a pos that invaded two of the countries that border iraq, causing the intentional deaths of many thousands
theres really no punishment available to give to Radovan that can equal what he has done
but i do feel sorry for the majority of the insurgents that are in iraq that are brainwashed in pakistani / saudi mosques believing US/UK troops are raping / torturing / intentionally killing muslim women all the time.

No, but it's easier for the people to believe so and it's easier for the government and news agencies to portray the "enemy" as "great evil".

Thats because they usually are?

It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's fact, propaganda is always present in the media when in war.

I dont doubt that tohorti, but you cant compare media "propoganda" to a HUGE media lie about the countries media knowingly covering up civilian deaths caused by their own countries military (which is the subject here btw)
an exageration and a lie are 2 different things

About "not providing an example", i've been busy doing other stuff and if i can, i'll check into that and find some "cover up blown" incident for you.

looking forward to it im sure you will find something that will shake the very foundations of the BBC and other UK reporters because they are unwilling to report civilian deaths because "it would be rather silly from your own propaganda machine" as you put it

AND again, stop making it look like i'm changing the subject or avoiding an issue when you're the one who changed it from what i said.

pls show me where i tried to make it look like you are changing the subject?
the only thing i can think of is when i said "but thats not the issue here" regarding UK military covering up civilian deaths, which is very different to a major UK based news reporting agency working with the UK military to cover up civilian deaths
and i changed what from who?

Noticed something, and here's the difference:

I consider media as a whole, no matter where the info comes from or who twists it etc(as towards dukies post about "there's no UK troops bombing innocents").
I think you're talking about a cover up by idividual stations?

Dukies point was there was no intentional bombing of innocents, i dont think he was saying there was never bombings of innocents, very important to differentiate the two..
french innocent civilians were sadly killed by british bombers in ww2, maybe france should have put churchill on trial after ww2 for war crimes?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Again, you're talking different point:

I consider media as a whole, no matter where the info comes from or who twists it etc(as towards dukies post about "there's no UK troops bombing innocents").
I think you're talking about a cover up by idividual stations.

And as such, null discussion really.

I don't think individual stations would cover up their own stories, but at the same time, i'm not considering media as individual stations. If military doesn't report their own bombings of civilians(as they probably don't), then it's propaganda via media. And THAT, is what i'm talking about.

And yes, well, if Churchill ordered bombings of some french village then yes, why not? And at that time it was most likely reported as an "accident" and nazi bombings as "terrorism" to UK people. If you know what i mean.

UK soldiers sadly killed innocents.
German soldiers slaughtered people!

 

[Tilda]

Innocent dead is an innocent dead.

Perhaps best way to put my view out there.

"Horrible warcrime to kill 7500 innocents", sure.
"Just casualties of war half a mil dead by operation freedom", bull.

no, you're totally missing the point.

In law theres this important thing called intent.

Karadzic intended every one of the 7500 men, women and children he ordered to be killed, to die.

Bush, Blair did not intend for civilians to die. While its unfortunate they have, and probably entirely predictable, there is no intent. This is not the same.

 

[old.Tohtori]

no, you're totally missing the point.

In law theres this important thing called intent.

Karadzic intended every one of the 7500 men, women and children he ordered to be killed, to die.

Bush, Blair did not intend for civilians to die. While its unfortunate they have, and probably entirely predictable, there is no intent. This is not the same.

That doesn't change the fact that i'm entitled to say and feel personally, which infact is what a opinion on forum is, that killing an innocent is killing an innocent, no matter the intent or not.

If you don't have the intent, it doesn't mean you're not still killing innocents.

Bush/Blair knew bloody well innocents would die, but went along and attacked anyway. Just because "there was no intent for civilians to die", doesn't remove the fact they knew it would happen.

 

[Tilda]

Hitler intended the Jewish race to be wiped out in the holocaust.
Bush Blair didn't intend for innocent civilians to die.

On the basis of your view, Iraq civilian casualties are as bad as gassing Jews in the holocaust.

*rolleyes*

You do realise the absurdity of your position right?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hitler intended the Jewish race to be wiped out in the holocaust.
Bush Blair didn't intend for innocent civilians to die.

On the basis of your view, Iraq civilian casualties are as bad as gassing Jews in the holocaust.

*rolleyes*

You do realise the absurdity of your position right?

You can twist any point to such examples and make it sound bad. Doesn't make it right. And yes, one gassed jew is as bad as one dead civilian by a bomming. It's an innocent death.

It's simple, civilian death, by any mean or other, is equally bad.
And my other point is simple too, there's propaganda in the media and facts are twisted(granted; mostly by sources).

 

[aika]

define innocent.
There's a difference between killing civilians intentionally while just putting them in a row in front a wall and between civilians dieing because they are caught in the crossfire or when trying to throw stones on enemy soldiers.

If you cant see this difference... then really, I dunno what to say.

Also you only look at the outcome - "civilian death", I guess civilian death by age is also a crime? of God or Nature?

Edit: History books are biased aswell, you can never find the actual truth of what happened.

 

[tierk]

.....im questioning how a major news reporting can knowingly lie about it when they actually know the full facts of what happened.

How about the whole lead up to the Iraq war? Not enough of a lie? Everyone knew that their where no WMD's in Iraq, the public, the UN, the government, the press but they fed everyone the usual bullshit and hey presto!!

Dont be so naive to think that the press in the UK or any other country for that matter is anything but an extension of governemt policy. Its a tool for selling whatever bullshit policy that is being passed off as the truth and the people that believe anything else.....

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok now i have to define innocent too? Not going to. It's a normal term, you can define it for yourself.

A moron takes a gun to school, kids die.
A moron takes an army to invade a country, kids die.

Those incidents, from victim point of view, not by act point of view, are no different.

From act point of view, doens't matter to me if there was intent or not, meant or not, if a kid is dead the kid is dead.

And stop with the "oooh but hitler gassed jews! those were innocent!" or "how about death by god/natural causes? Hmm?" 'cause honestly it makes you sound like 5 year old kids.(not saying you are, it makes you sound) Stick with the issue and don't try to make me or my point into something i'm not.

 

[aika]

Ok now i have to define innocent too? Not going to. It's a normal term, you can define it for yourself.

A moron takes a gun to school, kids die.
A moron takes an army to invade a country, kids die.

Those incidents, from victim point of view, not by act point of view, are no different.

From act point of view, doens't matter to me if there was intent or not, meant or not, if a kid is dead the kid is dead.

And stop with the "oooh but hitler gassed jews! those were innocent!" or "how about death by god/natural causes? Hmm?" 'cause honestly it makes you sound like 5 year old kids.(not saying you are, it makes you sound) Stick with the issue and don't try to make me or my point into something i'm not.

ok, just was following your logic!
Civilians die in every war, there's nothing you can do about it. In a war ppl die, and this will always include civilians. The question is then how they die and if it was intentional or not. In WW2 it was completely legitimate to bomb enemy cities to spread terror, today this is already not the case. So I guess we advanced somewhere

 

[tierk]

no, you're totally missing the point.

In law theres this important thing called intent.

Karadzic intended every one of the 7500 men, women and children he ordered to be killed, to die.

Bush, Blair did not intend for civilians to die. While its unfortunate they have, and probably entirely predictable, there is no intent. This is not the same.

Well Bush Blair certainly had intent and the entire basis of the war was a fraud, i know it, you know and everyone else with half a cell between their two ear holes knows this.

Just saying that they didnt intend that they kill a million+ people when they set out decieving the entire world doesnt make them anymore innocent or absolve them of their guilt. What did they expect when they invaded? To be welcomed with open arms?

Example, i drive down a one way street the wrong way and in the process i run someone over, who happened to be looking the other way as he crossed the road. In court i could seriously turn around and tell the judge that sorry it wasnt my intent to kill someone and while its unfortunate they have died, and probably entirely predictable, there is no intent and therefore i am innocent?

 

[old.Tohtori]

ok, just was following your logic!
Civilians die in every war, there's nothing you can do about it. In a war ppl die, and this will always include civilians. The question is then how they die and if it was intentional or not. In WW2 it was completely legitimate to bomb enemy cities to spread terror, today this is already not the case. So I guess we advanced somewhere

Yeah it all comes down to your own opinion, which i've emphasised is the case here, and i don't differentiate victims of mass murdering f*cks and cluster bombs. You know, killing people, not good and all.

Didn't mean to snap at you by the way, just got a bit bored at the near-name calling of people and you were next in line

 

[Athrun]

How about the whole lead up to the Iraq war? Not enough of a lie? Everyone knew that their where no WMD's in Iraq, the public, the UN, the government, the press but they fed everyone the usual bullshit and hey presto!!

Dont be so naive to think that the press in the UK or any other country for that matter is anything but an extension of governemt policy. Its a tool for selling whatever bullshit policy that is being passed off as the truth and the people that believe anything else.....

im not being naive -.- i just dont think you fully understand what im talking about here..
maybe in China and other such countries the media will blindly tow the goverment line no matter what..
but you are failing to understand the difference that im talking about between:
1. UK press reporting what they are being told by M15 / rumsfeld etc regarding WMD (which is what pretty much happened)
2. UK press being informed by M15 / rumsfeld etc prior to the invasion that they know there are no WMD in iraq but if you can publish this news to the public anyway and keep it a secret we can all go to iraq.

you really think that everyone working for the UK press could keep a secret like that?

can you understand how much of a difference it is for the UK press to report and knowingly lie to the public, and the UK press to report news that they have been given without having concrete proof themselves, which was pretty much the case in iraq..

i dont doubt that any goverment will try to use the media as an extension of goverment policy as you said, but i doubt very much that the UK media will knowingly lie for the goverment, infact its quite the opposite.. whenever the UK press have found incosistencies over the reasons for going to war they have never held back even when it put the goverment in a bad light..

but if you can give me an example of the UK press knowingly lieing to the public to tow the goverment line then give me an example? still waiting for tohorts example btw

 

[old.Tohtori]

Athrun that's because you're talking about a different thing, like i said. I never said any differentiation between the press lying and the press given wrong info(which they then report). I said that media is used for propaganda, which is a fact.

I hold media, in all it's forms, a system of getting info and reporting info. If you get false info and don't check on it, and simply report it, you're part of a cover-up. And the military covers things up all the time.

Why you brought the integrity of the press(completely different topic) into it, i don't know. I don't want to waste my time searching for something you probably don't mean.

I don't think i discussed the integrity of press here?

And again, history has shown the press lying(way back ofcourse) so it can/willl happen again. Might happen now, for all we know.

 

[Azurus]

Intent is quite a sketchy area though Tilda. The warnings given to the Bush government not just by its own people but by outside agencies such as the red cross all made it clear a humanitarian disaster would occur as a result of the invasion. For me that's intent enough, it's like saying someone shot into a crowd of people but didn't intend to kill any of them, therefore can't be blamed.

By the way do you people realise that before the bombings of Serbia the majority of killings were carried out by the Kosovan Liberation Army? It is only after the bombings that the Serbians began the cleansing, in fact this was a recognised consequence of the bombings. The real reason for the intervention was to flex Nato's proverbial muscle and make it clear tinpot dictators carrying out any agression will not be tolerated.

 

[Athrun]

Athrun that's because you're talking about a different thing, like i said. I never said any differentiation between the press lying and the press given wrong info(which they then report). I said that media is used for propaganda, which is a fact.

I hold media, in all it's forms, a system of getting info and reporting info. If you get false info and don't check on it, and simply report it, you're part of a cover-up. And the military covers things up all the time.

Why you brought the integrity of the press(completely different topic) into it, i don't know. I don't want to waste my time searching for something you probably don't mean.

I don't think i discussed the integrity of press here?

And again, history has shown the press lying(way back ofcourse) so it can/willl happen again. Might happen now, for all we know.

Ofcourse the news wouldn't broadcast "UK bombs kill a 100 civilians" or "Thousands of US bombs left in Iraq" 'cause that would be rather silly from your own propaganda machine.

hm ?
you are saying "the news wouldnt broadcast such things because that would be rather silly from your own propaganda machine" ?
i think you were discussing the integrity of press right there m8

and yes you are quite right to say there have been / will be military cover ups i dont doubt that

im not talking about something different when i quoted Tierk.. my whole point is that there is a difference between UK press reporting what they have been told however you see it, goverment propoganda / spin etc, and UK press lieing / not reporting a story that the public should know but wont report incase they feel the wrath of the goverment..

 

[old.Tohtori]

hm ?
you are saying "the news wouldnt broadcast such things because that would be rather silly from your own propaganda machine" ?
i think you were discussing the integrity of press right there m8

Propaganda machine is the whole of government and media. The news get their material from the government/military and most the time don't even check it out, but report it. And as such, they are part of the propaganda machine.

I'm not doubting that if bush said "we'll attack iran 'cause they talk funny!" that it would be covered up by the press, if leaked, but i am saying that the press is partly responsible too for reporting blindly what government says is "true".

You know?

Our discussion is rather null as you were talking about a different thing altogether.

Well not null, but kinda like discussion the projectile tendencies of apples and oranges.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So in short i think we can agree that news coverups aren't happening(atleast that we know of), military cover-ups do happen, and as news agencies report what the military tells them, we can't trust the media blindly and it is propaganda

 

[Ctuchik]

This really just isnt true, you'll find a couple of incidents involving a couple of deaths, but just a couple, as opposed to the two hundred deaths caused by the insurgents in just three examples picked out of a page full of them.

thats REPORTED incidents that google has tagged.

there IS alot more then those listed in that search.

problem is that the US (or any other "coalition") representative are allergic to showing exactly how bad they fucked up with their bombs. and thus, cover them up saying that whoever they bombed is lying. sure they may not be telling the truth either but that doesent mean WE are either.

i probably wouldn't be that far off when i'm saying that close to half of the civilian casualties in iraq has come from indirect actions made by the occupying forces.

and no, i don't have any proof that it is happening, but then again, you don't have any proof that it is NOT.

USA and their lapdogs just LOVE to use the "terrorist" excuse to get what they want.

 

[Ctuchik]

So in short i think we can agree that news coverups aren't happening(atleast that we know of),

well if we DID know about them they wouldn't be any good coverups now would they?

 

[old.Tohtori]

well if we DID know about them they wouldn't be any good coverups now would they?

Exactly what i said earlier