TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- CBC - Fifth Estate - The Lies That Led To War
Pages (2): « 1 [2]


Posted by Krypton on Oct-09-2008 01:53:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
as i have stated, it felt overly dramatic and kind of "gotcha!"-ish. i didnt have a problem with the information presented, more that i felt the delivery was 'sexed up'.


That's the nature of investigative journalism..


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-09-2008 01:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
That's the nature of investigative journalism..


well, have you watched the 3 docos i linked? superior in every way imo.


Posted by Krypton on Oct-09-2008 02:24:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, have you watched the 3 docos i linked? superior in every way imo.


I probably have, but I'll watch them again, because I'm not sure. Those 3 are more likely historical documentary format, while the CBC one is an investigative journalism format. I think it's just a difference in format.


Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-09-2008 04:58:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
lol why am I not surprised hearing this from you?CBC is one of the best news networks in the world and Iam very proud of what they have accomplished.


Which is....?

If they're so wonderful WHY do they need a BILLION dollars a year to stay afloat?


quote:

Tell us what else would you rather have instead genius.A canadian version of foxnews?


Do you live under a rock?
How many channels are available these days?


Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-09-2008 05:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Yes, being subservient to commercial interests is 1000 times better......public broadcasting networks pwn corporate media in their independence from advertising interests.


That's like saying cookies are better with dough...
What are you saying anyways?


Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Oct-09-2008 08:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Just facts

If it wasn't for Hockey Night in Canada they'd already be dead and now that they've lost that, I have no idea what's holding that place together other than spit and paper that consists of my tax dollars...


what the hell are you talking about? CBC has some of the best reporters in the business (Peter Mansbridge, Henry Champ) and I'm fairly certain is the most watched channel for national news. Lloyd Roberton is good too, but I'd take the CBC over CTV any day and I'm certainly not alone on that.

The CBC isn't going anywhere.


Posted by Q5echo on Oct-09-2008 09:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Wrong, it's well known the plans for the attack had been in the works since 1996.


wtf does that have to do with what i said?

all i'm saying is Bin Laden can't even be legally indicted on the charge of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. he's just a material witness wanted for questioning.


Posted by culorut on Oct-09-2008 12:48:

They don't even want Bin Laden for 9/11, only the embassy bombing back from 1998.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm


Posted by Krypton on Oct-09-2008 17:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
That's like saying cookies are better with dough...
What are you saying anyways?


Cookies are better with dough? What a horrible analogy which makes no sense...

What I am saying is obvious, why you don't get it, I find strange...

Corporate media = loyal to advertising interests
Public media = loyal to public interests

It's that simple...


Posted by Krypton on Oct-09-2008 17:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo

all i'm saying is Bin Laden can't even be legally indicted on the charge of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. he's just a material witness wanted for questioning.


So why are we fighting a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Why did we bomb them back to opium heaven? Nothing makes sense anymore.


Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-10-2008 01:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Cookies are better with dough? What a horrible analogy which makes no sense...

What I am saying is obvious, why you don't get it, I find strange...

Corporate media = loyal to advertising interests
Public media = loyal to public interests

It's that simple...


You actually think the CBC is subject to public interests?

I don't remember being asking a single thing from CBC.

IT'S A GOVERNMENT RUN ENTITY...What's so hard to understand here?


Posted by Sunsnail on Oct-10-2008 01:39:

Wow bin laden is tall


Posted by Krypton on Oct-10-2008 02:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
You actually think the CBC is subject to public interests?

I don't remember being asking a single thing from CBC.

IT'S A GOVERNMENT RUN ENTITY...What's so hard to understand here?


Funny, you don't even know how your own public broadcasting network operates. The CBC is run autonomously from the Canadian government. It's very sad your hatred for your public media. I love the CBC's, and PBS's of the world don't have to chase television ratings. Their content is so much better than the corporate media...HANDS DOWN...


Posted by hardcore trancer on Oct-10-2008 02:53:

Hey FirE what do you hate so much about the CBC?because of their honestly and the fact that they always try to show both side of the coin unlike the American Newsnetworks?


Iam so glad to have CBC in this country.


Posted by Q5echo on Oct-10-2008 05:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
So why are we fighting a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan?


because the Taliban protected Al Queera.

we continue to fight them because they insist on being fought. there really is no other reason.

you forget that the Taliban never used to use Al Queera tactics i.e. franchized suicide jihad and ethnic wedges. they fought us straight up like proper Mujahadeen. of course that failed them in the end against a superior force and for a while they backed off and regrouped. now that Al Queera has been forced out of Iraq, many of them have regrouped with the Taliban in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan and now are employing primarily Al Queera tactics.

NATO forces are absolutely no help at all because the individual countries that have their forces in Afghanistan do not allow those forces to engage the enemy they are there mostly for show and humanitarian, construction and training of Afghan forces. we are the few that have open ROE's


Posted by Krypton on Oct-10-2008 05:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
because the Taliban protected Al Queera.


So? The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Usually, when we want a criminal, we ask for extradition. In this case, why didn't the US with all it's military capabilities drop in special forces on September 12 or 13, cut off the passes into Pakistan, and capture the guy. Instead, Rumsfeld waited 1 month, until he could get control from the CIA over the operation planning and implementation. We're fighting the Taliban, when we should have gotten Al-Qaeda that very week!


Posted by Q5echo on Oct-10-2008 06:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
So?


i forgot im arguing with a child.

quote:
Usually, when we want a criminal, we ask for extradition.


we did you idiot. on Sep 20, 2001 we issued an ultimatum to let us into the country and dismantle Bin Laden's training camps and for them to hand over any known terrorist within their command structure. over the next two weeks the Taliban negotiated through several ME countries including Saudi Arabia but those negotiations fell through.

during that time we were mobilizing a two division (18,000 troops and their toys) Joint Task Force from the East coast all the way to Indian Ocean and the Med with orders to stand by once there. that in itself took 1 month and thats hauling serious ass.


Posted by Krypton on Oct-10-2008 06:22:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i forgot im arguing with a child.


Sorry, come again?

quote:
we did you idiot. on Sep 20, 2001 we issued an ultimatum to let us into the country and dismantle Bin Laden's training camps and for them to hand over any known terrorist within their command structure. over the next two weeks the Taliban negotiated through several ME countries including Saudi Arabia but those negotiations fell through.

during that time we were mobilizing a two division (18,000 troops and their toys) Joint Task Force from the East coast all the way to Indian Ocean and the Med with orders to stand by once there. that in itself took 1 month and thats hauling serious ass.


Well, when you ask for extradition, usually the other country asks for EVIDENCE before they carry it out.

Ever heard of Division Ready Brigades? These are brigades, companies, or divisions able to deploy within 72 hours, sometimes, in less than 24 hours, anywhere in the world. That's not even counting our special forces capabilities...The fact is, the CIA had initial planning and operational control in Afghanistan, until that control was ceded to Donald Rumsfeld, in a bit of jealous infighting within the administration, during which, the Pentagon failed to assist their CIA colleagues who were already in Afghanistan...for 1 month...


Posted by Q5echo on Oct-10-2008 07:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Well, when you ask for extradition, usually the other country asks for EVIDENCE before they carry it out.


so youre saying the Taliban had no idea they had Al Queera training camps in their country and that those camps were specifically there for the purpose training and organizing international terrorist to bring Jihad to the West for the prior five years?

again you forget (mainly because you reflexively blame your country first without thinking because youre a stupid piece of adolecent shit that doesn't deserve the country you live in and you know it). we were attacked repeatedly by those camps prior to 9/11.

quote:
Ever heard of Division Ready Brigades?


sure but that wasn't going to meet our goals. we were preparing to fight a known, battle hardened and organized Mujahadeen in the mountains of their own backyard. we knew what it was going to take to overthrow the Taliban and set up a new government. Enduring Freedom was just the begining in Afghanistan.

quote:
The fact is, the CIA had initial planning and operational control in Afghanistan, until that control was ceded to Donald Rumsfeld, in a bit of jealous infighting within the administration, during which, the Pentagon failed to assist their CIA colleagues who were already in Afghanistan...for 1 month...


they may have had "operational control" of their people in Afghanistan but they didn't have control of the country. after 9/11 we wanted control of the country. little of that operational control mattered after 9/11.


Posted by Krypton on Oct-10-2008 16:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
so youre saying the Taliban had no idea they had Al Queera training camps in their country and that those camps were specifically there for the purpose training and organizing international terrorist to bring Jihad to the West for the prior five years?

again you forget (mainly because you reflexively blame your country first without thinking because youre a stupid piece of adolecent shit that doesn't deserve the country you live in and you know it). we were attacked repeatedly by those camps prior to 9/11.


Nope, never said the Taliban didn't know about Al-Qaeda's War against America. What I am saying is the Taliban themselves were not fighting a war against America. They were still busy just trying to take control of the country. As for your ridiculous "reflexively blaming my country" bullshit of an argument. I am a dissenter. Dissent...hmmm...something this country was founded on? I do it because I love my country! Your dumbass would rather have an authoritarian king than a true democracy, so go fuck yourself...

quote:
sure but that wasn't going to meet our goals. we were preparing to fight a known, battle hardened and organized Mujahadeen in the mountains of their own backyard. we knew what it was going to take to overthrow the Taliban and set up a new government. Enduring Freedom was just the begining in Afghanistan.


Yes it would have met our goals. We have those brigades for a reason. You know it, and I know it, the Pentagon should have helped their CIA colleagues already operating inside Afghanistan, but they didn't, because ole' Rummy just had to have control over the operations, and that's that...

quote:
they may have had "operational control" of their people in Afghanistan but they didn't have control of the country. after 9/11 we wanted control of the country. little of that operational control mattered after 9/11.


I never said they controlled the country or that they should. It shouldn't have been about controlling the country, it should have been about finding and capturing Osama bin Laden, which your King George utterly failed to do.


Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-10-2008 17:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Funny, you don't even know how your own public broadcasting network operates. The CBC is run autonomously from the Canadian government. It's very sad your hatred for your public media. I love the CBC's, and PBS's of the world don't have to chase television ratings. Their content is so much better than the corporate media...HANDS DOWN...


I never interjected OTHER public broadcast media channels - YOU DID.


Posted by Krypton on Oct-10-2008 17:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I never interjected OTHER public broadcast media channels - YOU DID.


What the hell are you talking about? You said the CBC is "government run", which clearly, it is not. Sorry that bothers you...


Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.