What you won’t see about Iraq on American TV

February 17, 2007 By

Interesting that we spend hours and hours talking about Anna Nicole Smith’s death, but we don’t see the horrific images coming out of Iraq as evidenced by this video. Warning: these are gruesome images, but I find it interesting that we don’t see these images of the sheer horror of what’s going on here. Interesting to see what the media in various countries show us. Americans seem to get the most watered-down news.

Filed Under: 1
← Older Comments
  • http://www.miraesoft.com/karel Karel
  • http://www.miraesoft.com/karel Karel
  • http://tech.am/ Mike

    Dirk,

    The war was started because the world (at least the braindead world) was led to believe that Iraq was on the brink of having nuclear weapons, that it already had vast bio and chemical arsenals, and he was building missiles capable of striking any western country.

    Excuse me for shouting: ALL THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE. No nuclear weapons, no massive stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, and no long-range missiles (they could at most get half-way to Israel, but that was it).

    The UN resolution was passed on false evidence presented by Mr. Colin Powell, which claimed to be solid proof of Saddam’s lack of compliance with resolutions that forbid him from developing such weapon programs. Even Hicks, who you mention, said he had no solid proof of the claims presented. I’ll have to remind you again that for years, it was the US who armed and fed Saddam intelligence, just like it was the CIA that trained and financed Bin Laden to become a monster against the soviets in Afghanistan. The problem is that when the monster’s conflict ended, he had to look for something to keep doing abominable things, then 9/11 happened, etc. etc. You cannot play with fire and not expect to get burned.

    Back to the UN resolutions – again, they were passed on false evidence. It is also an established fact that the US uses the UN as it sees fit, when it passes resolutions or takes actions against US interest, then suddenly they are the source of all evil – case example, the resolution passed to allow prosecution of war criminals and torturers, to which the US objected and opposed, as it didn’t consider that US personnel should be accountable in front of an international war crimes tribunal (can anyone say Abu Grahib, before saying “yes, but we are really good people and never do nasty stuff”?).

    I remember a video that pasted all the times Bush said he knew Saddam had nuclear (actually, he says nucular most times) weapons, and it was a LOT. That doesn’t seem like an excuse made up in the UK.

    Saddam was a cruel and brutal dictator. Did he deserve to be removed? Sure, but so did Pol Pot and he spent years killing millions of people, and nobody rushed to remove him.

    The invasion of Iraq was a fiasco, and still is a fiasco. Just today over 60 people have been killed in various bombings, but the guys in the Green Zone insist on telling us that everything is going A-OK.

  • http://tech.am Mike

    Dirk,

    The war was started because the world (at least the braindead world) was led to believe that Iraq was on the brink of having nuclear weapons, that it already had vast bio and chemical arsenals, and he was building missiles capable of striking any western country.

    Excuse me for shouting: ALL THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE. No nuclear weapons, no massive stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, and no long-range missiles (they could at most get half-way to Israel, but that was it).

    The UN resolution was passed on false evidence presented by Mr. Colin Powell, which claimed to be solid proof of Saddam’s lack of compliance with resolutions that forbid him from developing such weapon programs. Even Hicks, who you mention, said he had no solid proof of the claims presented. I’ll have to remind you again that for years, it was the US who armed and fed Saddam intelligence, just like it was the CIA that trained and financed Bin Laden to become a monster against the soviets in Afghanistan. The problem is that when the monster’s conflict ended, he had to look for something to keep doing abominable things, then 9/11 happened, etc. etc. You cannot play with fire and not expect to get burned.

    Back to the UN resolutions – again, they were passed on false evidence. It is also an established fact that the US uses the UN as it sees fit, when it passes resolutions or takes actions against US interest, then suddenly they are the source of all evil – case example, the resolution passed to allow prosecution of war criminals and torturers, to which the US objected and opposed, as it didn’t consider that US personnel should be accountable in front of an international war crimes tribunal (can anyone say Abu Grahib, before saying “yes, but we are really good people and never do nasty stuff”?).

    I remember a video that pasted all the times Bush said he knew Saddam had nuclear (actually, he says nucular most times) weapons, and it was a LOT. That doesn’t seem like an excuse made up in the UK.

    Saddam was a cruel and brutal dictator. Did he deserve to be removed? Sure, but so did Pol Pot and he spent years killing millions of people, and nobody rushed to remove him.

    The invasion of Iraq was a fiasco, and still is a fiasco. Just today over 60 people have been killed in various bombings, but the guys in the Green Zone insist on telling us that everything is going A-OK.

  • http://tech.am/ Mike

    I meant Hans Blix, not Hicks – apologies.

  • http://tech.am Mike

    I meant Hans Blix, not Hicks – apologies.

  • Zengin Chali

    America’s TV may show somehow a real picture of Iraq, and I am not sure that they do not. But, I am sure that they do not show a real picuter of Turkey. What is said and shown on Turkey is very far away from the real situation on the ground.
    By looking to the kurdish problem in the middle east, the real policy of western countries and their journalism can be appeared. The words Democracy, Human Rights and Terror are used just to protect the western countries’ economic advantages. What kind of democracy is that when a country is supported in which the birth of a Kurdish child is crime, he must be born Turkish.
    God has created those people Kurds, why do Turks try to change their nationality? Western countries instead of supporting Turkey as a member of NATO, must presure on Turkey to improve its file of human rights and democracy. Is a group or pary with thousand and thousands of fighters and millions and millions of adherents, a terrorist organization? Are all of those people terrorists? Logically think, which of the followings is terrorist:
    - A Kurd that fights and kills Turks in the mountains of Kurdistan and not in the Turkish cities.
    - Turks that attack Kurdish villages and destroy more than 4000 villages, kill a large number of them and force the remaining innocent people there to leave their homes and go to the Turkish cities in order to forget their language and becom Turks!!!
    Western countries say that Turkey is a democratic country. I challenge, if someone give me even an example that if Turkish government has allowed, simply, a book for kids to be published in Kurdish language, or people to name their childeren as they desire, or a Kurd to speak on a TV program just a few simple words in his/her mother-tongue language!!! How is a country democratic that imprisons people because of writing the letter “W” instead of the letter “V”? Is using the letter “W” istead of “V” the terror that western countries define and claim? So, the Turkish government has the worst file of democracy all over the world and the journalism has to show this fact to the people all over the world. At last, I suggest that writers, researchers, correspondents and politicians must try to find other words for Democracy, Human Rights and Terror, since people do not believe in these words anymore.
    Thanks

  • Zengin Chali

    America’s TV may show somehow a real picture of Iraq, and I am not sure that they do not. But, I am sure that they do not show a real picuter of Turkey. What is said and shown on Turkey is very far away from the real situation on the ground.
    By looking to the kurdish problem in the middle east, the real policy of western countries and their journalism can be appeared. The words Democracy, Human Rights and Terror are used just to protect the western countries’ economic advantages. What kind of democracy is that when a country is supported in which the birth of a Kurdish child is crime, he must be born Turkish.
    God has created those people Kurds, why do Turks try to change their nationality? Western countries instead of supporting Turkey as a member of NATO, must presure on Turkey to improve its file of human rights and democracy. Is a group or pary with thousand and thousands of fighters and millions and millions of adherents, a terrorist organization? Are all of those people terrorists? Logically think, which of the followings is terrorist:
    - A Kurd that fights and kills Turks in the mountains of Kurdistan and not in the Turkish cities.
    - Turks that attack Kurdish villages and destroy more than 4000 villages, kill a large number of them and force the remaining innocent people there to leave their homes and go to the Turkish cities in order to forget their language and becom Turks!!!
    Western countries say that Turkey is a democratic country. I challenge, if someone give me even an example that if Turkish government has allowed, simply, a book for kids to be published in Kurdish language, or people to name their childeren as they desire, or a Kurd to speak on a TV program just a few simple words in his/her mother-tongue language!!! How is a country democratic that imprisons people because of writing the letter “W” instead of the letter “V”? Is using the letter “W” istead of “V” the terror that western countries define and claim? So, the Turkish government has the worst file of democracy all over the world and the journalism has to show this fact to the people all over the world. At last, I suggest that writers, researchers, correspondents and politicians must try to find other words for Democracy, Human Rights and Terror, since people do not believe in these words anymore.
    Thanks

← Older Comments