Fallujah Massacre

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by yum@Dec 28 2005, 07:09 PM

thats some really impressive satire youve got goign there stereotype

Quoted post

 

Thanks, did you see the irony there? Because the post a few up said "anyone complaining about war is politically brainwashed by the liberal media" sarcastically, yet anyone who disagrees with the consensus that the American military is trying to kill and butt rape all the defenseless Iraqi children for oil (even though I could buy an 1,000 acre estate in the Rocky Mountains with the money it costs to fill a car up for one year) must be a warmonger. Pretty hilarious, I know. I'm glad someone appreciates all of the excruciatingly hard work I put into each and every post. I love you man.

 

EDIT - I forgot to commend you on the impressive satire you've got goign there, pointing out my impressive satire. Its a cycle of satire, and everyone is the winner!!

[SF1]

Except you're a loser.

[John Birch]

that web link with the flix is good. The stats are intersting too... 5000 USA dead instead of 2000...

[Dawood]

Stereotype & SF1 Quotes

 

"and everyone is the winner!!"

 

"Except you're a loser"

 

 

 

crossfire is so predictable these days, I'm just bored to death

[SF1]

And to think... I actually tried to control myself. Oh well.

[SF1]

OK how about this then...

 

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Dec 28 2005, 11:36 PM

and everyone is the winner!!

Quoted post

 

 

Except the inocent civilians that got their heads blown off in the name of our "president" that was allegedly "elected" by a minority of braindead "Christian" zombies. You know, the inocent civilians in Fallujah who's expense you're laughing and "satireing" about.

[Stereotype V.001]

Ok SF- since the mods don’t seem to care that you continue to attack posts off topic, and I’m not allowed to play with you, I’m gonna limit it to one post and stay on topic.

 

Let me go nice and slow, with a user friendly approach.

 

-Satire means “Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.�

 

-My post you quoted was directed towards “yum’s� post.

 

-My first post was commenting on the outlandish, extremely biased, flawed, and overall idiotic nature of the video this thread was based on, and the link my good comrade posted showcasing/glorifying dead US servicemen. The link also presented blatant lies as facts that only extremely gullible people would buy into. I used satire for this post.

 

-“Yum� pointed my satire out through use of his own satire.

 

-I pointed out “yum’s� use of satire, to point out my satirical post, through more satire of my own.

 

-I labeled this a “cycle of satire�, and was commenting that “everyone was a winner� of this cycle, which had nothing to do with Fallujah or anything else you took out of context.

 

Hopefully, this has been an incredible adventure through reading comprehension for you. If you are still lost, I can’t really help you with anything other recommending a good adult literacy program. Have a nice day.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

SF1, another one of these and your 75% goes to 100% and you're out. You leave me no option here dude.

[John Birch]

c'mon guys its the holidays, maybe he's just depressed and drinking and pilling heavily

 

 

(no I not sf1 and/or kabar)

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

SF1 is not a scapgoat dude, i'd advice you to stay on topic and stop instigating shit aswell.

[John Birch]

so you made me 75%? I see, I see... and don't forget only jews, blacks, Catholics, retards, fags and yankess players are scapegoats!!!!

 

edit* and so I don't get banned, I was talking to my buddy about how the willey pete footage was a bit faked, or misreported actually....he was just in Iraq...now he's back and drunk drives and does alot of coke and already got busted for graf...so sad, was once one of the best writers in boston...

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by Dawood+Nov 15 2005, 12:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dawood - Nov 15 2005, 12:56 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-POIESIS@Nov 15 2005, 03:46 AM

if you're in favour of freedom of speech, you're in favour of it precisely

because there are opinions and viewpoints you find despicable,

otherwise you're not in favour of it.

Quoted post

 

 

I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of censorship. When You were a kid and you said something out of line, Your dad most likely let you know you better shut up or catch a bad one,

 

Sometimes people just need to shut up, seriously. 99.9% of the problems people cause for themselves come from their mouths.

 

I can't stand pc (politically correctness) talk straight.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

 

Ok so who decides what’s worthy of being censored?

 

And I agree that some people cause problems by not shutting up, but it’s only fair to say that problems also arise when people never open their mouths.

[El Jefe Uno]

video has some good footage, altho it is obviously biased.. not that i disagree or agree completely with their stand point but any documentary should be solely based on facts, not opinions, as said before

 

Attack To Downtown Grozny by Vyacheslav Mironov was also a good read, thanks for the links

[wiseguy]

Originally posted by CACashRefund@Nov 12 2005, 03:04 AM

different situation, alot of the people in hurricane katrina stayed because they grew complacent, they lived through the hurricanes with property and limbs intact and thought "hey, ill live through it again"

 

but in fallujah, theyre dropping flyers anouncing that united states marines are surrounding the city and are going to descend on it in search of insurgents, they should have gotten the hell out.

 

i know i would have

Quoted post

 

anyone trying to leave fallujah had to show passports and shit to make it past us troops on the city limits. anyone without the money or connections to hook that up were slaughtered.

[master bait]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Dec 29 2005, 01:13 AM

Hey master bait, are you a rusky?

Quoted post

 

hell no

[Stereotype V.001]

Oooh, someone seems a bit salty. Is there something you want to share?

[Dr. Dazzle]

So if all this shit is true, why isn't this documentary all over the news?

 

Should I email this to the UN?

[Guest KING BLING]

Can Master Bait get a 'well done' on givng a strong opinion with logical ideas...we need more of that

 

So, what is the discussion here? I'm confused really. You have a shitty documentry but it raises a strong argument. I would offer that the battle is a perfect case of Marines doing what needs doing in a battle of black and white in a world of color. Its seems like the war on drugs - the little people doing it have there hearts in the right place, probably view people who believe in more liberal policies as not having a grasp of reality, but working for a policy and career officers/politicians who need to show results, principle or humanity be damned. I don't think this is a scandal, but it is sad and I wish pro-war folks would spend more time saying 'it needed doing, but strategy wise this is what I would offer...' instead of always viewing what the government does as right simply because they view anything otherwise as a bonus to liberal thinkers....

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by Dr. Dazzle@Jan 14 2006, 04:26 AM

So if all this shit is true, why isn't this documentary all over the news?

 

Should I email this to the UN?

Quoted post

 

Because its not, but don't tell anyone here that.

 

Master bait - What country are you from?

[southrngent]

the liberal media what a joke! you are listening to much bush limbum, glenda beck and slanthead hanutty. stop quoting the talking heads, you guys are like the parrot that sits in my aunts kitchen. cnn bbc and msn are all controlled by right wing fanatics and big business, lets not even bring up fox news(it so fake that it is scary).

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by southrngent@Jan 19 2006, 11:59 AM

stop quoting the talking heads, you guys are like the parrot that sits in my aunts kitchen.

Quoted post

 

 

Funny, my aunt's got two parrots, and you sound just like one of em.

 

Everyone thinks the media is slanted in the opposite direction of what they believe in. The media is only biased towards the green, and I don't mean the political party.

[hobo knife]

well...

 

Maintstream media might be biased towards the green. Believe it or not I think there are some media sources truely concerned with being unbiased, but they aren't the ones on TV. I'd venture to say most americans (at least most of the republicans) get their news from the TV.

 

But...the mainstream media is also owned by multi-nat'l corporations who have vested interests in how the american public interprets news. So in a sense they are driven not just by money, but by their own investments...ie. iraq, defense industry, environmental regulations. I'm not sure how it breaks down anymore...G.E. owns nbc/msnbc and viacom is a subsidiary of some other corporation...I forgot..but these corporations make serious amounts of money when we go to war or when so and so gets elected or when environmental regulations are lifted... therefore they under report them or spin the story in favor of some corporation and fail to mention their parent company also owns said corporation. But then the media makes us really mad about gay people and liberals and demonstrators and when celebrities break up.

 

So then really confused people log on to internet forums and bitch about welfare abusers and the liberal media and why our new strategy in iraq will work....haha.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

All I see the mainstream media reporting on is headlines that will attract eyeballs. If there is a huge scandal at GE, and people are bound to tune in to read those news, you can bet your ass that regardless of the media companies it owns, it WILL report on it in precisely the same way people want to read about it, negatively or positively, because that will generate money regardless. Everyone gets reamed in the media if they fuck up, cause everyone loves seeing rich people get reamed. I found no lack of articles on MSNBC of how Microsoft bungled the Xbox 360 release and pissed off a lot of people, or the overheating lawsuit, issues that could directly affect sales and corporate image. I saw a billion news reports from supposed "right-wing" sources damning the hell out of Bush in the same way it damned the hell out of Clinton back then.

 

The vast majority, if not all, of non-mainstream media I've seen eventually falls into this same rut. First of all, they usually shoot themselves in the foot right off the bat because they start off from the belief that all mainstream media is biased (almost always to the right), and that places a very palpable anti-corporate bias immediately on them. It drives me up the wall that since people always seem to think their beliefs are correct, whatever media outlet that presents news in the style and format they agree with is obviously totally truthful and unbiased. In any case, presenting media to an audience requires money no matter what. Even if a media outlet's initial goal was to provide news free of corporate and/or outside influence, eventually it will run into the problem of acquiring the funds to get the appropiate resources to both cover an issue, prepare the reports, and deliver to the audience. To do this it needs help from A) private sources, B) like-minded partners who work on the site willing to put up a portion of their personal day-job paychecks, or C) a like-minded audience willing to donate funds. Either way, outside influence is unescapable, and it's pretty much impossible to find a sizable group of donors that are willing to accomodate stories that benefit/damage both the right and the left. There's simply not enough moderates in the country for this, although everyone thinks they're moderates. Everyone thinks they're right at the center of issues, and it's simply not true.

 

People need to shut the fuck up about how their unbiased news sources are right, and start reading different reports on issues from all positions on the bias spectrum. If I read something from foxnews.com, I'll head over and read about it on BBC, CNN, MSNBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, indymedia, and even whatreallyhappened.com. I don't see what the fuck is so hard about reading about an issue from a viewpoint you may not agree with for whatever reasons. You can only come out better because of it.

[hobo knife]

The media does cater to sensationalism, I don't doubt that, and if Ted Turner was caught with a prostitute I'm sure CNN would cover it just like every other station. But, what I don't think these larger corporations are willing to do is investigative reporting on touchy subjects which,

A) might effect legislature concerning their subsidiaries

B) might upset some of their corporate partners

C) might cause a public uproar and shift US policy

 

...for instance, I highly doubt NBC will ever be able to afford to upset the pentagon in any way, seeing that GE is granted billions in gov't contracts every year...they pretty much do what they are told. In fact the line between big business and politics is so blurred that US foreign/domestic/environmental policy is generally in the same interest as GE/Ted Turner/Rupert Murdoch/CBS...

 

...it's understood what is acceptable to do investigative reporting on, thats why all these scandals and appearent cover-ups are only headlines for a week before they get shoved out of our memory and hardly ever mentioned again. So, yeah the TV news will report what the public wants to hear, but they understand very clearly when to drop it and move on to the next big story. Like the tax cuts...or cheney's secret energy meetings...or Bush's deep ties with ken lay... or what Bush's siblings do... or his grandfather... or Bush's dad's involvement in Iran/contra... or all the missing money in Iraq... or the gas pipeline in afgahnistan... or why Bush allowed Osama's family to fly out of the country on Sept. 12... Or the shotty elections...

 

I can't say what direct connection some of the media giants have to all these scandals but I'm sure there is some reason why they won't investigate any further than whatver the status quo was. In some cases it's probably public image matter, that they don't want to make waves and lose conservative advertisers...

 

But I agree you have to get your news from multiple places, the TV is where you can get your daily dose of sensationalism and a quick blurb about what happened today.

[Stereotype V.001]

"I can't say what direct connection some of the media giants have to all these scandals but....................................."

 

Interesting. GE and NBC, that's pretty compelling. Maybe Katie Couric masterminded 911 and planted evidence of Iraq's WMD program to profit from the wars.

 

Damn I'm smarmy.

[BURLAP]

it's not about bias, it's about what and who's interests are served.

and it has much less to do with who the people are and how embarrassed they might be and wacky conspiracies and so forth. the media is a slick, cold, calculating business sector driven by advertising dollars and economic affiliations. like other businesses it has a target market, and just like every other business, it has recurrent fixed costs and variable costs. when you start talking major media conglomerates, the ones that 'set the news agenda' that are owned by massive transnationals, profits trump nearly everything.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

"What and who's interests are served" directly generates bias. I wouldn't say they're much different.

 

As for the rest, I agree wholeheardtedly, as I outlined in my post. But I still firmly believe that independent media outlets eventually succumb to the same level. Maybe not to the point of trying to profit, but expenses need to be taken care of and money needs to come from somewhere.

 

Hobo, I think that media dropping a story and moving on is less a consecuence of parent companies cracking down on them and than it is about public interest in said story waning. If people are still willing to read about a story, there's still money to be made off it. I mean, it can be argued both ways I'm sure, but I don't think it's clear-cut one or the other.

[BURLAP]

yea, when i think bias, i usually tend to think of a report reflecting more of a

political viewpoint..right/left sort of thing. i guess the 'bias' is reflected from

time to time in that somewhere in the chain of business/economic affiliations,

a direct loss of revenue will be affected.

there is a relationship and that 'bias' has to do with products in the marketplace.

 

*products being a variety of things, from physical tangibles, to intellectual property.

[sarifs&clips]

Its interesting to see these opinions (and thats what they are) from people that werent there...I was. All I can say as that everything within our power was done to ensure that civilians were not harmed..that being said, this is a fucking war and shit happens. You can't drive in a car towards a military checkpoint at a high rate of speed and ignoring all signs to stop and not expect not to get shot..sad but thats just the way it is. It would be nice to conduct a war with zero civilian deaths but its not possible, especially a war such as this with the enemy wisely blending into the civilian populace the best they can and using tactics such as suicide car bombs.

 

 

White Phospherous has been in use for many many years and will continue to be. "Willy Peter" is not considered a chemical weapon under the geneva convention. Until the politicians decide to outlaw it, the USMC will use whatever weapnons we have at our disposal to get the job done, including W/P.

 

I guess it would be better if the bodies, many which were obviously combatants due to the fact they were wearing vests with ammo pouches, were blown to pieces by conventional bombs rather than burned up by willy Peter.

 

 

I found it funny how the video shows the civilians runniing with the white flag and then cuts to a shot of some dead bodies as if we are supposed to assume these were the same guys that were running with the flag although you don't actually see them getting shot.

 

The last portion of the video showing the pilots view from the Cobra Gunship is also heavily edited. At the beginning of the unedited version you see weapons (RPG's) being echanged before the gunner lights them up.

 

 

The video gets the "hell of war" point across but Slaughter in Falllujah? Please!

[MRDOZE]

that shits crazy.