Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009

BravoSierra

I came across this list in another site:

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation
# 2 Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA
# 3 InfraGard: The FBI Deputizes Business
# 4 ILEA: Is the US Restarting Dirty Wars in Latin America?
# 5 Seizing War Protesters’ Assets
# 6 The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
# 7 Guest Workers Inc.: Fraud and Human Trafficking
# 8 Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly
#9 Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Testify
# 10 APA Complicit in CIA Torture
# 11 El Salvador’s Water Privatization and the Global War on Terror
# 12 Bush Profiteers Collect Billions From No Child Left Behind
# 13 Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq
# 14 Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste
# 15 Worldwide Slavery
# 16 Annual Survey on Trade Union Rights
# 17 UN’s Empty Declaration of Indigenous Rights
# 18 Cruelty and Death in Juvenile Detention Centers
# 19 Indigenous Herders and Small Farmers Fight Livestock Extinction
# 20 Marijuana Arrests Set New Record
# 21 NATO Considers “First Strike” Nuclear Option
# 22 CARE Rejects US Food Aid
# 23 FDA Complicit in Pushing Pharmaceutical Drugs
# 24 Japan Questions 9/11 and the Global War on Terror
# 25 Bush’s Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer

More information on each of these items can be found here:
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

What do you agree / disagree with?

Diogenes

BravoSierra wrote: »

I came across this list in another site:

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

I'll take this on. The death toil of one million is based on surveys and means statistics. It's not scientifically accurate. The article is also so poorly written that there is a typo on the first line in the 2nd paragraph.

# 24 Japan Questions 9/11 and the Global War on Terror

"Japan" doesn't question 911. A misinformed MP in the Japanese parliament, who made several basic easily correctable factual inaccurate claims about the attacks. Trying to suggest that the whole country is behind 911 conspiracy theories based on this is just plain wrong.

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

My arse I would say max 300,000

Hogzy

Deleted User wrote: »

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

My arse I would say max 300,000

+1

Four-Too

Deleted User wrote: »

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

My arse I would say max 300,000

Your point being?

contact23

300000 mmmm numbers

GhostInTheRuins

Deleted User wrote: »

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

My arse I would say max 300,000

That makes it so much better does it?

Diogenes

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

That makes it so much better does it?

The point of the one million iraqi's is the fact that some one is making deal of the fact that the figure is now in the low seven figures.

Or are you saying that if the American government killed fifteen iraqis that should be the lead story of the year?

My point being that theres no one who's got accurate statistics, they're working on a if 5,000 Iraqi's say they have X amount of relatives killed they've established a mean that suggests 1 million Iraqs could have been killed. This can no way be considered to be accurate interpretation of the facts (and this was a survey not a accurate look at, y'know, death certs issued) . Finally it is taking a mean from a six month period and applying it to a three year period, failing to take improvements and failures in the security situation.

It's a dreadful statistic.

humanji

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

That makes it so much better does it?

It does for the 700000+ who aren't dead.

Mahatma coat

This looks suspciously like somone is Denying the holocaust occuring in Iraq;)


BBC report on it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7036331.stm

in fairness tho lads arguin numbers is a bit of an impractical science when people are still gettin killed on daily basis and many are unreported

there used to be a counter called Iraqideathclock orsomething that reported the casulties at the beginin of the occupation but Icant find i now, strange, could be a conspiracy, or it could just be another signof thegeneral apathy of the rest of the world and our nonchalant attitude towardsdeath

Ciaran500

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there used to be a counter called Iraqideathclock orsomething that reported the casulties at the beginin of the occupation but Icant find i now, strange, could be a conspiracy, or it could just be another signof thegeneral apathy of the rest of the world and our nonchalant attitude towardsdeath

Or you might of just typed the wrong thing into google. :rolleyes:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Mahatma coat

cool, thanks
#5 is the one that catches my attention first
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

Nick_oliveri

mahatmas_BBC_Link wrote:

The Iraqi government does not keep precise records of civilians killed and neither do US forces. So estimates of civilian deaths vary greatly. Some figures focus on those who have died as a direct result of the violence, some estimates include deaths blamed on other causes, such as the collapse of Iraq's infrastructure.

In November 2006 Iraqi health ministry estimates ranged from 100,000 to 150,000 dead. This contrasts with a survey of Iraqi households in the Lancet, which suggested about 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war by July 2006.

Who cares right? They got rid of Saddam before he had that 45 minute chance to blow up Britain and all. Whats a few Iraqis.. Why should their government keep track of the death toll... The war is over. We got them terrorists.

1.Invade Iraq
2.Capture Saddam
3.Kill Civilians
4.?
5.Profit!

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

This looks suspciously like somone is Denying the holocaust occuring in Iraq;)

What a class act you are.

Mahatma coat

OK point missed by someone.

there are 25 items on that list, lets not let the thread get derailed focusing on one aspect of one point

anyone see anything interesting in any of the other topics?

like I said the seizure of assets for war protestors is worrying

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

cool, thanks
#5 is the one that catches my attention first
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

Yeah lets look at the order shall We?

1) to have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq . . . or 2) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order . . .

So to be clear this isn't just random "War Protesters" it's specifics those who who commit violence, or attempting to commit violence that would threaten peace in Iraq.

The implication of the OP is that anyone who turns up to a anti Iraq War protest could face having their home seized, the reality is that people engaging in terrorism could have their assets seized.

So out of the three stories I've looked at I've found three massive factual inaccuracies, that completely undermine the original claim.

Shall I look at some more there MC?

Mahatma coat

people 'supporting' terrorists, people who 'pose a significant risk' of supporting terror, their spouses and families, basicly anoyone they think looks dodgey or has seizeable assets

note also the fact that they dont need to notify you, they can just seize yer assets, appologies later if they made an arse of it and brand you and yer family terrorists.

you think thats a fair and balanced piece of legislation?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

people 'supporting' gangsters, people who 'pose a significant risk' of supporting gangsters, their spouses and families, basicly anoyone they think looks dodgey or has seizeable assets

note also the fact that they dont need to notify you, they can just seize yer assets, appologies later if they made an arse of it and brand you and yer family terrorists.

you think thats a fair and balanced piece of legislation?

Wow when you oversimplify something it can make anything look bad, who knew?

Of course this ain't the topic. Of that list the ones we've looked at have huge glaring factual inaccuracies. I think it's fair to conclude that these stories weren't censored they're just crap.

Mahatma coat

ok wheres the factual inacuracy in the bit that quotes GWB's anti terror laws, are you saying that these executive orders were a figment of the authors immagination

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ok wheres the factual inacuracy in the bit that quotes GWB's anti terror laws, are you saying that these executive orders were a figment of the authors immagination

Mainly the fact those executive orders have nothing to do with war protesters contrary to what is claimed in the headline.
The factual inaccuracies in the other stories have already been pointed out.

Mahatma coat

OK So how can you tell that from the executive orders, cos I cant se it, its a very vauge piece of legislation that as far as I can see could mean anything the authoirites wanted it to mean.

but you are obviously more informed on these things than the average member of thepublic so would you pleeeeeeeease enlighten us.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK So how can you tell that from the executive orders, cos I cant se it, its a very vauge piece of legislation that as far as I can see could mean anything the authoirites wanted it to mean.

Diogenes already explained this.

have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined 1) to have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq . . . or 2) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order . . .

How does that apply to war protesters? It's clearly to be used against people actively funding or supporting terrorists.

Mahatma coat

you didnt even read the link did you?

thats the order itself that Diogeness C&P'd

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

you didnt even read the link did you?

thats the order itself that Diogeness C&P'd

Yes, quoted from the article itself.

How does it apply to war protesters?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ok wheres the factual inacuracy in the bit that quotes GWB's anti terror laws, are you saying that these executive orders were a figment of the authors immagination

No but project censor's lurid take on them is both factually inaccurate and a figment of their imagination.

have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq

You wrote:

the seizure of assets for war protestors is worrying

Please point out where this will lead to the seizure of assets of war protesters, or better yet an example of a peaceful anti war protester, having his or her assets frozen after in engaging in war protesting.

Looking at another story we find yet another inaccuracy.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/21-nato-considers-first-strike-nuclear-option/

NATO Considers “First Strike” Nuclear Option

But looking at the actual story:

Former armed force chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France, and the Netherlands authored a 150-page blueprint calling for urgent reform of NATO,

So it's not actually the NATO considering this at all be rather some ex-military chiefs proposing a reform of the NATO.

And looking at the proposals given in the article:

* A shift from consensus decision-making in NATO bodies to majority voting, resulting in faster action through an end to national vetoes
* The abolition of national caveats in NATO operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign
* No role in decision-making on NATO operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations
* Use of force without UN Security Council authorization when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings.”

There is nothing to suggest anything about nuclear weapons.
It very much seem the author was being a bit sensationalist. Supporting the conclusion these stories weren't censored they're just crap.