bumper234 wrote: » Are you honestly saying that American news channels are better than Russian because American news channels are not full of propaganda? :eek:
realweirdo wrote: » To say the US had no role in the fall of the USSR is frankly the most bizarre thing I've read on here. The USSR ran out of money. Much of it had to do with keeping up an arms race with the USA. Another major part was fighting a costly war in Afghanistan which the US fought as a proxy conflict. Defeat in Afghanistan was the beginning of the end. That's my last comment on the USSR as like you said I will try to keep it relevant to Syria from now on. You can reply to this post if you want but that's it.
realweirdo wrote: » Look at how Russian media treat the political opposition and how American TV treat the political opposition - its a good start.
Eggy Baby! wrote: » Bold:The USSR fell by itself. And the US didn't help (notice "help") defeat Nazism or Japanese fascist imperialism out of the good of it's heart. There was an obvious strategic interest. You'd have to be blind not to see that. For every good deed there is an appalling atrocity. I'm not going to give you a history lesson because these things are so well known by this stage even by people who have little to no grasp of history. I suggest you go to Eason's and buy a history book (not a school textbook) and broaden your knowledge with regard to these things. I could give you a list if you really desired, or some material in a PM. Yours exasperatedly, Eggy.
Jonny7 wrote: » Yah, I watched both, Irish and English and sometimes I'd notice a different slant on the same incident. However there's a fairly large gap between that and the outright propaganda and conspiracy mongering attitudes of state-run stations like RT. Different kettle of fish altogether.
donegal__road wrote: » ok, I'll put it to you like this... I grew up listening to bbc reportage on events during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. I happen to live in very close proximity to Northern Ireland, and heard eye witness accounts of what actually happened on the ground from locals... I soon realised that what was being reported in the news, was manipulated to support the British agenda. My awareness of propaganda and the public mind began around that time.
Jonny7 wrote: » True, and when you can see through both, you're probably on the right track.
donegal__road wrote: » there is a large market in the US (and elsewhere) for media that portrays non western countries in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Jonny7 wrote: » She is saying that they are winning the information war (propaganda). There's a large market in the Russia (and elsewhere) for media that portrays the US in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.
realweirdo wrote: » Convienently ignore the fact that America confronted and helped defeat three of the great evils of the 20th century Nazi Germany, Emperial Japan and the USSR. (Ireland stayed neutral). Ignore the fact that but for the US, South Korea would be a communist run sh*thole like North Korea. Ignore the fact that America is the biggest provider of humanitarian assistance in the world by far. Ignore the fact that America is about the only nation confronting Islamic terrorism, yes in a war where there is collatoral damage, but the alternative is to allow the spread of Islamofascism unchecked. It really is a case of either or in this situation. Ignore the fact that America sent the Taliban packing from large parts of Afghanistan. And basically ignore every good deed America has ever done in its history. You don't do balance do you?
donegal__road wrote: » not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words, 'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT'
Jonny7 wrote: » Won't find any of these theories in mainstream anything, because they are just theories. When they strike a certain narrative they are seized upon by the relevant blog/editorial sites that do their best to pose as news articles.. and of course our favorite foreign propaganda sites if they are in any way anti-Western or take a nice juicy shot at Israel.
...the fact that Iraq had switched to paying for oil in euros—rather than US dollars—the Bush administration’s unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.
bumper234 wrote: » So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?
donegal__road wrote: » not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words, 'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT' here is Hillary Clinton addressing congress on the issue of American TV trailing behind non-Western media. Faux News, ABC, CNN, NBC are a monolithic media.
realweirdo wrote: » You're using Russia Today as a source? Seriously? You might as well use the Disney Channel or the back of a rice crispie box as a source.
donegal__road wrote: » In the months leading up to the invasion of Libya, Gaddafi called on African countries and other Muslim countries to come together and join the new currency he intended to establish, the Dinar. .
alastair wrote: » Rather better to only believe them, or at least give them some degree of credibility, if they have some evidence to support the mooted theories. Otherwise it's just a work of creative fiction.
Jonny7 wrote: » There's little evidence. Gadaffi had dozens of crackpot ideas, the "United States of Africa", a gold dinar, abolishing Switzerland and so on.. Most of these countries (Iraq, Libya, Iran) have been under sanctions by the West/World for decades - they have sought alternative ways of trading, Iran switched to trading oil via rial/gold/euro/etc over a year and a half ago.
bumper234 wrote: » Yeah around the same time the US starter beating the war drum about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Coincidence?
esteve wrote: » Is what he wrote not true?
realweirdo wrote: » If you ignore a lot of facts, its true such as the fact that the UNSC, Arab League, NATO and dozens of countries supported the intervention in Libya including Scandanavian countries as well as Belgium. Were they also all trying to overthrow Gaddafi because of his alleged move to trading oil with gold? That's the problem with a lot of these conspiracies, they only work if you ignore a lot of things.
