I was looking for something else an I came across a Chinese news website. I found it quite interesting 1. As there are the same stories with a totally different perspective 2. There are just some weird things on there http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...snum=1&ct=result&prev=/search?q=163.com&hl=en I didn't relize for instance there is a "an underground supply route" to gaza (is this true?) Sanctions were still in place against Iraq And articles like this http://74.125.79.102/translate_c?hl...&hl=en&usg=ALkJrhhlcUGyY7RbfklKL2PEIoQywQCsqw Almost imply that Hamas are seizing the rice to ensure? The rest is lost in translation Weird reading the news from another perspective but since western media is so controlled maybe this is the way to? ANyway back to reading about the cow struck by lightening, the 15 year old transexual and a watermelon carving competition
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83682,00.html Imad seems to be right If you check Fox news it is totally different
The Iraqis were genuinely happy that the brutal asshole who had been ruling over them for decades was gone: You'll never hear that side of the story from al jazeera or imad.
from that same poll done in April 2004 which you posted the small image of it, exactly the same tactic that been used with "Saddam Statue" event, here is the bigger image: here is a link to the whole poll (not a cherry-picked) part of it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/iraq_poll/flash.htm
Its amazing how this post so quickly changes from "do we get the news" a Chinese website to the usual religious vs US banter. Perphaps we should get "Call of Duty" installed instead on this part of the server and we can all have a go at killing each other online instead. You should all grow up to two facts 1. No matter where you live or whether you prey to a sickle or a goat your goverment does not give a s&*t about you. 2. The press tell you a story not the news
In fairness to the Iraqi people they thought they were voting against George Bush Senior and Junior. I remember the poll well mind it was just after "Who wants to be a Millionare" and thousands of Iraqis rushed out the 600 yards to find the working phone and make the vital long distance call. At least acknowlege that you might not be in the vital loop to learn the true news
Be happy Iraqis, US brought democracy! here is another poll: 90% of Iraqis say things were better before US invasion note that before the invasion it was siege
I posted the poll to refute your assertion in another thread that the Iraqis never wanted the US there. The Iraqis were happy in the beginning because we were far better than Saddam. The Iraqis became bitter as murders in their country began murdering each other and as foreign fighters came in to disrupt the path to a peaceful, democratic Iraq. There are many people(at least enough to cause chaos) like you would not like to see Iraq become a self-sustaining, free and prosperous nation just because it was a US lead initiative. When the poll was taken they didn't like the soldiers being there. They saw innocents being killed, being caught in the crossfire or blown up by bombs planted by murdering islamic fanatics and they blamed the US soldiers. They blamed the US for the civil war that broke out between muslims who were murdering for their god. You can't blame regular Iraqis for thinking the US presence was doing more harm than good. I don't agree with them but if I were in their shoes I might think the same thing. But still given all that they had suffered(much at the hands of muslims killing each other and innocent people) the bottom line is they think overthrowing Saddam was worth it all. I've posted two polls that show this and can probably find more. I didn't think this would be enough to keep you from spreading dishonest propaganda though, apparently the quran doesn't say anything about lying.
Logixflux, we went in there not to bring democracy. We are there to install a puppet regime and to foster future control of that country's resources. Havent you learned from history yet? Answer me one question please. Did we go into Iran in 1953 to foster democracy or install a dictator? and didnt we take out a democratically elected leader in Iran and install a leader who wasnt elected by the people. And yet you still trust the news thats being spoonfed to you? Do you seriously believe that anyone in that region trusts us after 50 years of plunding their resources????????????????
from your post: "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." [Qur'an 40:28] you can't reason it by "the other is lying" since people are not stupid as you may think, and can check by themselves, then ask yourself, have you read Qur'an and saw what it say about lying? or now you are trying to turn this discussion to become about Islam and Muslims? you can start a thread and say whatever hateful things you want about Islam and Muslims and I will be happy to reply you there, but here we are talking about the news, and media, and how they can deceive people, like in the statue example, you came objecting, should we understand that you agree that fox news and other media channels there been honest in transferring the image from Iraq to the American people? or that Iraqis been happy with the invasion? as I tried to tell you in the other thread, and will repeat it again here: there are Iraqis who been happy that Saddam is gone, and there are many who were not, of the ones who been happy that Saddam been gone there are also many who are n ot happy with the invasion, so you can't count the ones who are "happy that Saddam is gone" as "happy with the invasion", if Satan been the president of US many will be happy with this and many will be unhappy, there is no point to make here, the point that should be understood, did they see in that invasion a try to liberate them? where they happy with it? the same poll you quoted only a part of it in your first post here, says they were not.
There isn't much information given on how the poll that you posted was conducted. Frankly, the 90% sends red flags up for me. Remember that Saddam was "democratically" elected with more 100% of the vote. All I could find about the methods used in the poll you posted were that a think tank headed by a Sunni conducted them and that random adults were surveyed in Baghdad, Najaf and Al Anbar. Great, so pick the three areas where some of the worst insurgency violence has been to conduct your poll. That's just good statistical methodology there. You can't expect to get a fair survey if your methods or sample data is inherently biased. This is like conducting a survey of hens in a county or province to try to guage their stress levels and then overwhelmingly choosing the hen houses that have been attacked by wolves as the subjects of your survey. Baghdad, Al Anbar and Najaf should count, but they shouldn't be exclusively where any poll is conducted. This is basic statistics. Although I'm sure the insurgent terrorists would like the areas that they've targeted the most heavily to be counted exclusively in a poll, since one of their main goals was to create as much havoc as possible to sway opinion against the US. And the Kurds didn't seem to have a big say in this poll either, since they only make up about 3-4% of Baghdad. The Kurds support the US's efforts more than any other group. I guess that is good enough reason why their opinion shouldn't count. So I'll put my faith in the USA today poll which has more realistic numbers and wreaks less of bias since there are portions of the poll that can be considered to show the US in a negative light. You must believe in the USA Today poll too since you cited part of it and then linked to it. "From March 22 to April 2, an exclusive USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll was conducted across Iraq. More than 60 speically trained Iraqi pollsters fanned out throughout the country to survey 3,444 randomly selected Iraqis. Significant differences between the three major groups -- Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds -- were seen in the poll results." I couldn't find such a summary of your poll's methodology, so I'll try to write one and maybe you can submit it to them. "Randomly selected subjects were surveyed only in areas that had fierce insurgency violence. And although the terrorists do seem to have made progress in swaying opinion against the US by blowing shit up and killing innocents, the results should not be construed as being the overall opinion of Iraqis as a whole."
Here's another poll. "These are among the findings released today from the largest poll into Iraqi opinion ever to be published. " Also keep in mind that most of these polls I'm posting were conducted after the insurgency and sectarian violence. There are polls that show a much more support for the US shortly after the invasion. I'll try to find them.
We went into Iran to help our British allies who were being screwed over on a deal that they had struck many years prior. But the reason we got involved was because we were fighting a cold war and having a pro-western dictator was probably better for the world(at least the western world, which means better for the world) than having someone sympathetic to communists who was nationalizing resources. I know it's popular to believe that freedom is the natural condition. That all we have to do is sit back on our sofas with our remote controls and a bucket of Haagen-Dazs while we flip from one reality show to the next and the western style way of life will just continue to be maintained and to spread. Unfortunately that's not how it works. The cold war was a fight over influence. At the end of the day, the values of those who had more influence would become the dominant values of the world and the winner would dictate the course of the world. Personally, I'm glad that the US took an aggressive approach towards communist influence in the world, even if it meant sacrificing one anti-western yet democratically elected person, communist influence was lessened which helped the greater goal of stifling communist and anti-western influence in the world. What is the result of our aggressive actions?
To the OP: There are many who know US/European mass media is pure propaganda. From reading your posts, it sounds like you don't know what the hell is going on in the US, let alone the rest of the world. You know the facts but don't understand the reasons.
Just take a look at our Meddiah, Barrack Obama. He can do no harm in the medias eye. The campaign didn't have the news reported, it had what the democrats paid for reported.
Yeah because facts and reasons are two different things. And the graph I posted served me in no way, it only serves the facts, which you know I understand. What do I have to do to learn the real reasons? Listen to Alex Jones more? Or just buy all the crap posted by the anti-american terrorist supporters on here? If I sided with the death-to-america crowd, cheered on Hamas as being honorable and loathed the fact that the USSR lost the cold war, would I be a better, more enlightened person? I'd at least blend in better on here and wouldn't ruffle the feathers of people such as yourself.
You sure know the buzzwords, talking points, and jargon of the political machine. Whenever I hear someone trying to make an argument and they use terms such as... blue state/red state terrorism/terrorist/insurgent anti-American/unpatriotic cold war/war on terror/war on drugs/war on anything liberty/democracy/freedom/"free" society government protection/government security the "west"/3rd world/undeveloped/developing it makes me wonder if they really believe this or if they are up to something. Since you seem informed, it's very difficult to accept you actually believe what you are typing. Either you are naive or cynical. I still haven't figured this out yet.