Your world is waiting...
https://quake3world.com/forum/
but they don't deny using it on insurgents...which is still a war crime...R00k wrote:Haven't read it yet, but
US Denies Using White Phosphorous on Iraqi Civilians
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200511 ... NS-DC.html
You're still pushing ideas on me that are just nonexistent in some attempt to cast me in a negative light. I jumped on the presentation of the news, but agreed with the general message there. As such I never took away from the point rook or the news agency was making. Rather, I presented a different argument about this film, which got debated. It is a different topic, but its one that was warranted by the film's obvious bias.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:if canis doesn't like the news, he blames the messenger
My cock is thicker than that.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
I think the main issue here is the way you minimized the topic of the film and focused on the way it was made. Your comment about war crimes and chemical weapons were nearly a footnote compared to the time you spent on the production's style and the people involved with it.Canis wrote:You're still pushing ideas on me that are just nonexistent in some attempt to cast me in a negative light. I jumped on the presentation of the news, but agreed with the general message there. As such I never took away from the point rook or the news agency was making. Rather, I presented a different argument about this film, which got debated. It is a different topic, but its one that was warranted by the film's obvious bias.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:if canis doesn't like the news, he blames the messenger
..."doesnt like the news"...."blames the messenger"....your interpretive skills are minimal at best.
Canis wrote:That film is by no means impartial and unbiased. It starts with an immediate attack on american activity. I think the american soldier was the most direct and truthful source, but even his report in this film was jaded by the film's attempt to skew events, especially through emotional tactics. For one, cut out the fucking audio clips of desperation-sounding wailing. Its ridiculous. Second, dont attempt to push civilian deaths as an equal attempt by the american military to killing insurgents. It's not true, and will never be true. Yes civilians died, but as the soldier put it, they were killed out of self defense in some cases and in other cases by indirect "collateral" damage. I agree the phosphorous was and is an "illegal" device, and should be investigated much more. However, to claim and push that the civilian casualties from this were the desired effect is ludicrous.
Oh yeah...that!Turbine wrote:Are you a fucking moron?
The only and every goal of a war is to kill people on the other side, so you have control. In war there is no "civilian". Specialy when you use uranium round's and phosper.
The only reasojn they went in to cruch Iraq is because they where the only country in midle east that had the balls to stand up to amarica, and the US went in to stop a possible spread of idiology throught the middle east. Oh and there happened to be lot's and lot's of oil there. And the west is kind of running dry of this money maker.
DO you really think that anyone in the white house, mutch less in the whole US gives any fucking shit about Iraq shooting their own citizens? They dont give a flying fuck, unless it makes them money.
Look at Africa, does anyone give any flying fuck about all those people getting killed by each other, and by overfucking->(aids, starvation)? They could'nt give a fluying fuck, and you know why? There is no bilions of barrels of black gold sitting under it, thats why.
That and calling a bunch of AIDS-carrying-starving-Africans "terrorists" won't get you re-elected.Turbine wrote:Look at Africa, does anyone give any flying fuck about all those people getting killed by each other, and by overfucking->(aids, starvation)? They could'nt give a flying fuck, and you know why? There is no bilions of barrels of black gold sitting under it, thats why.
Well, it appeared the other stuff had already been addressed in other posts, which is why I didnt spend so much time on it. I guess I should have made a note of that.R00k wrote:I think the main issue here is the way you minimized the topic of the film and focused on the way it was made. Your comment about war crimes and chemical weapons were nearly a footnote compared to the time you spent on the production's style and the people involved with it.Canis wrote:You're still pushing ideas on me that are just nonexistent in some attempt to cast me in a negative light. I jumped on the presentation of the news, but agreed with the general message there. As such I never took away from the point rook or the news agency was making. Rather, I presented a different argument about this film, which got debated. It is a different topic, but its one that was warranted by the film's obvious bias.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:if canis doesn't like the news, he blames the messenger
..."doesnt like the news"...."blames the messenger"....your interpretive skills are minimal at best.
That's kinda the way your post came across to me too.
edit: Which is why I responded the way I did after I read it.
I guess I've got my focus.R00k wrote:Well that's fair enough but, honestly, it sounded like you didn't care about the weapons and the issues being raised nearly as much as you were bothered by these people who made the documentary.
TBH, I still haven't really seen you say anything that would convince me that's not the case. Every time you say "yea the weapons are bad" you write two paragraphs on journalism and people's agendas in making the video.
Because the documentary had wailing music.R00k wrote:That's pretty damning.
And it raises the question of our useless media again: If this was already documented in military journals and by embedded reporters, why did it take a documentary from another country to make it into our news? :icon27:
Well, its admission. Its also just supportive of our media catering to government to present them as always doing good, because the american public has a hard time accepting when america is in the wrong. The majority of america, being right-winged, sees america as this perfect place that's better than the rest of the world. For ratings, the news agencies cater to this idea. They'll just overlook any controversy unless its has some melodramatic component to it. They wont show a story that will just unearth some truth and lead to a controversy.R00k wrote:That's pretty damning.
And it raises the question of our useless media again: If this was already documented in military journals and by embedded reporters, why did it take a documentary from another country to make it into our news? :icon27:
