Iran TV (PressTV)

[Oliver]

The new Iranian, English-Speaking channel started some days ago. Now we finally can get the other side of the propaganda, too - and you also can watch their program via streaming.

To stream their Program:
mms://217.218.67.244/presslive

Their Homepage:
http://www.presstv.ir/

Enjoy. :boxedin:

[Matteo Martini]

The new Iranian, English-Speaking channel started some days ago. Now we finally can get the other side of the propaganda, too - and you also can watch their program via streaming.

To stream their Program:
mms://217.218.67.244/presslive

Their Homepage:
http://www.presstv.ir/

Enjoy. :boxedin:

Excellent.

Superb.

Thanks Oliver!!

Going to browse into it, now.

[Oliver]

Excellent.

Superb.

Thanks Oliver!!

Going to browse into it, now.


I'm also browsing the site and streaming their news right now. It may be a good source whenever there is a new incident and we only hear "Bush's side"...

mms://217.218.67.244/presslive (mms://217.218.67.244/presslive)

[Segnosaur]

The new Iranian, English-Speaking channel started some days ago. Now we finally can get the other side of the propaganda, too - and you also can watch their program via streaming.


Here's a better idea...

Learn to speak Farsi. That way, you can actually hear what the Iranian leadership is telling its own people, rather than just what they want you to hear. (There is a tendency for some leaders in that part of the world to say "we want peace" in English to the western world, and "we want the U.S. destroyed" in their own language.

You know, I'm always amazed at the lengths that some people will go to to justify their support of Iran. How can ANYONE draw any sort of realistic comparison between the press freedom from Iran and the press freedom in the U.S.? According to "Reporters sans frontiers", The U.S. regularly sits in the top third of the countries in the world in terms of press freedom. Iran consistently places itself near the bottom of the list.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

When you try to equate the type of news produced by Iran with the type of news produced in the U.S., not only do you give a distorted view by giving more credibility to Iranian sources than it deserves, but you also do a discredit to the many journalists in the U.S. that do work to provide unbiased reports.

Oh, and here is something to consider:
- The majority of newspapers in the last election endorsed Kerry, not Bush
Not exactly the actions of a journalistic community that produces pro-Bush news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presid ential_election,_2004

[gtc]

Segnosaur,

I agree entirely with your last post.

I also think it is important for Oliver to realise that two wrongs do not make a right.

If you have two propoganda sources you can not say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Take Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany. You can not find the truth about America by triangulating the anti-American propoganda of Nazi Germany and the anti-American propoganda of Communist East Germany.

This applies to any two sources.

Take the attitudes of Pardallis (as an example from another thread) towards Jews and the attitudes of white nationalists towards Jews.

Pardallis' attitude seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) that Jews are people and are no worse or better than people in general.

White nationalists have the view that Jews are scum at best.

If you average the two views you would decide that Jews are somewhat evil. This is incorrect because the truth is (as unpleasant as it might be to some) that Jews ARE just people.

[Flo]

The new Iranian, English-Speaking channel started some days ago. Now we finally can get the other side of the propaganda, too - and you also can watch their program via streaming.

To stream their Program:
mms://217.218.67.244/presslive

Their Homepage:
http://www.presstv.ir/

Enjoy. :boxedin:

How do you make sure what you read and hear on this channel accurately reflects what the Iranian media (or more exactly the Iranian government) tells their citizens ? (hint: Segnosaur gave you an excellent suggestion).

I happen to have an Iranian colleague who I regularly ask for translations of Ahmadinejad's and other Iranian government members's discourses, as well as for an idea of the press in Farsi and of the general Iranian attitude over subjects like Israel, the USA, Iraq war, etc., and the outcome is that there are good reasons not to give too much trust to protestations of peace and goodwill in English.

[Flo]

When you try to equate the type of news produced by Iran with the type of news produced in the U.S., not only do you give a distorted view by giving more credibility to Iranian sources than it deserves, but you also do a discredit to the many journalists in the U.S. that do work to provide unbiased reports.

Not only in the US, but in the whole World.

[Segnosaur]

Not only in the US, but in the whole World.

I know.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the U.S. was the only source of 'free' news, but the original poster did make a point of comparing U.S. and Iranian sources.

Of course, you did bring up a good point... if they consider the U.S. news sources as prophaghanda, why not just read sources from Europe or other liberal democracies as a 'counterpoint' rather than going to Iranian sources? After all, many of those european sources are quite hostile to Bush and his policies.

[jsiv]

The new Iranian, English-Speaking channel started some days ago. Now we finally can get the other side of the propaganda, too - and you also can watch their program via streaming.


Could you find me one that is unafiliated with the Iranian government? One that is free to criticize the government and publish any news it wants without first clearing it with the government's censorship department?

What a pointless site. Oliver, I genuinely hope that you understand that what this English-speaking channel says is not the same as you would see in the Farsi media. They only say exactly what the Iranian government wants foreign viewers to hear. It's very similar to other news outlets in the Middle East, from the palestinian stations to Al Jazeera (which is heavily sanitized in English.)

Useful as part of a study into actual propaganda, maybe, but little else.

[gtc]

Actually, I think that Oliver has Press TV wrong.

Its Wikipedia article says that the Iranian government is aiming for a genuinely independent news source (although they are funding it) and the journalists are claiming to be free of Iranian government control (many of them are based overseas).

I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one (afterall the BBC aren't exactly beholden to the UK government). That said, I note that the Iranians shut down two domestic media outlets during the week they opened this news service.

At best this news service will be another news service that is not beholden to Bush. But then again, how many news services really are beholden to Bush?

At worst it will be a source of biased pro-Iranian propoganda. Which the world does not need.

Either way, it won't reflect what the Iranian government or the Iranian people actually think.

[danielk]

Segnosaur,

I agree entirely with your last post.

I also think it is important for Oliver to realise that two wrongs do not make a right.

If you have two propoganda sources you can not say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


I agree entirely with both of you. Thanks a lot. I've been trying to get that idea into Oliver's head for a while now.

[jsiv]

Actually, I think that Oliver has Press TV wrong.

Its Wikipedia article says that the Iranian government is aiming for a genuinely independent news source (although they are funding it) and the journalists are claiming to be free of Iranian government control (many of them are based overseas).


Assuming anything Wikipedia says is true, I still don't buy it. If they went against the government censors, they would be off the air and in a cell quicker than you could say "Bush is satan." The station is based physically in Iran.

There just is no comparison with the BBC (which certainly does have bias, but certainly not pro-government.)

It's a shame really, because an Iranian station that was maybe based entirely abroad (with people and connections in Iran, clearly) with complete freedom of press would be very interesting.

[Flo]

I know.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the U.S. was the only source of 'free' news, but the original poster did make a point of comparing U.S. and Iranian sources.

I know, and my point was exactly what you write below,

Of course, you did bring up a good point... if they consider the U.S. news sources as prophaghanda, why not just read sources from Europe or other liberal democracies as a 'counterpoint' rather than going to Iranian sources? After all, many of those european sources are quite hostile to Bush and his policies.


but we have to remember that Oliver tends to display a bad case of "with us or against us" ... ;)

[Oliver]

I agree entirely with both of you. Thanks a lot. I've been trying to get that idea into Oliver's head for a while now.


I also agree with the fact that two bads doesn't make a right.
But at least we hear more than just one side to dig into issues and to imagine how much the different views differ from each other. Basically I don't believe Bush more than I believe in Ahmadinejad anyway. :)

[Oliver]

if they consider the U.S. news sources as prophaghanda, why not just read sources from Europe or other liberal democracies as a 'counterpoint' rather than going to Iranian sources?


Because many News about Iran, Iraq and every other Evildoeraxisofevilnation originate in the holy temple of truth: The Pentagon, White House or the CIA. Unfortunately, no one can proof that they're propagating BS unless the Evildoeraxisofevilendofourculturethreateningnation can up with good rebuttals or contradicting facts.

[Flo]

I also agree with the fact that two bads doesn't make a right.
But at least we hear more than just one side to dig into issues and to imagine how much the different views differ from each other. Basically I don't believe Bush more than I believe in Ahmadinejad anyway. :)


Then your case is even worse than I imagined.

"Bush", for all his faults, is president of a country with a free press and public opinion and with institutions that ensure he can be made accountable to the citizens of his country for anything he does of says (whether said citizens want to make use of this possibility is another thing, but at least they do actually have it - is you doubt it, read the constitution). Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is only accountable to the bunch of religious autocrats he's the mouthpiece of, since there's no democratic institutions to ensure the Iranian government would have to answer to the public opinion, barring a revolution (and this is taken care of with throwing scapegoats to the public, be them the Jews, Americans, and whoever else).

Now, try to reread what you've been writing and substitute Ahmadinejad with Kim IlJong and Iran with North Korea, and think about how ridiculous it sounds.

[Flo]

Because many News about Iran, Iraq and every other Evildoeraxisofevilnation originate in the holy temple of truth: The Pentagon, White House or the CIA. Unfortunately, no one can proof that they're propagating BS unless the Evildoeraxisofevilendofourculturethreateningnation can up with good rebuttals or contradicting facts.


Yes, sure, every single reporter anywhere in the World who doesn't outright condemn America the way Oliver wants is a mouthpiece for the PentagonWhiteHouseCIA :rolleyes:

Pathetic ...

[Oliver]

Yes, sure, every single reporter anywhere in the World who doesn't outright condemn America the way Oliver wants is a mouthpiece for the PentagonWhiteHouseCIA :rolleyes:

Pathetic ...


W.M.D

[Oliver]

Then your case is even worse than I imagined.

"Bush", for all his faults, is president of a country with a free press and public opinion and with institutions that ensure he can be made accountable to the citizens of his country for anything he does of says (whether said citizens want to make use of this possibility is another thing, but at least they do actually have it - is you doubt it, read the constitution). Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is only accountable to the bunch of religious autocrats he's the mouthpiece of, since there's no democratic institutions to ensure the Iranian government would have to answer to the public opinion, barring a revolution (and this is taken care of with throwing scapegoats to the public, be them the Jews, Americans, and whoever else).

Now, try to reread what you've been writing and substitute Ahmadinejad with Kim IlJong and Iran with North Korea, and think about how ridiculous it sounds.


Oh well. So what does the Iranian Constitution say then? :confused:

[jsiv]

Because many News about Iran, Iraq and every other Evildoeraxisofevilnation originate in the holy temple of truth: The Pentagon, White House or the CIA. Unfortunately, no one can proof that they're propagating BS unless the Evildoeraxisofevilendofourculturethreateningnation can up with good rebuttals or contradicting facts.


http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/%7Ecojofl/pictures/Rabbit%20with%20a%20toilet%20roll%20on%20its%20hea d.jpg

[Flo]

Oh well. So what does the Iranian Constitution say then? :confused:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
"Article 4, the Islamic principle, is immutable and the Council of Guardians ensures that "all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws" are based on Islamic criteria."
which in effect negates all the articles about feedom of the press or of religion …

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/irancor1.htm
JURIST's Iran Correspondent is Mansour Jafarian, LL.M., Lecturer, Azad University; Attorney-at-Law, Tehran.
Democracy and the Iranian Constitution
[Tehran; Special to JURIST] I have already set out in some detail the basics of the Iranian constitutional structure. We can say that in the Iranian Constitution the Sovereign Powers are independent of each other, but all of them are subject to the absolute authority and leadership of the Leader. Therefore, the principle of the Separation of Powers does not govern in the Constitution.

[Flo]

W.M.D


evasion noted (once more)

[jsiv]

Exactly. The constitution is not the supreme law of the land, Islam is.

Same with the President. He answers to the religious leaders above him.

[Oliver]

evasion noted (once more)


What evasion? I talked about propaganda. You replied with talking about free press and constitution - and I made the classic example that a free press and constitution means nothing. Especially if the free press actually is a "patriotic, free market sensationalistic press". :boggled:

[Oliver]

Exactly. The constitution is not the supreme law of the land, Islam is.

Same with the President. He answers to the religious leaders above him.


And? So did Jesus when Bush heard him saying: "Go to war". :boggled: :rolleyes:

Oh - I grasp your point here: The 220 years old constitution poses protection against that... :D

[danielk]

[...] I made the classic example that a free press and constitution means nothing.

It means nothing?! Nothing?!!?! Do you really believe the BS you are writing? Oliver, you conclude from an imperfection that an idea means nothing. Can you see the obvious fallacy in your argument?

Oliver, if push comes to shove: Where would you rather live, in Texas or in Iran? Please give a honest answer. Thank you.

[jsiv]

I'm talking about Iran, not the United States or President Bush.

Would it be okay for Ahmadinejad to eat babies as long as Bush did it too?

[danielk]

And? So did Jesus when Bush heard him saying: "Go to war". :boggled: :rolleyes:

Whatever Bush might say, there is no Jesus telling him what to do. His actions are completely based on his own convictions. In Iran on the other hand, we have religious authorities which actually exist in flesh and blood.

Oliver, please stop misconstruing arguments on purpose.

[Oliver]

It means nothing?! Nothing?!!?! Do you really believe the BS you are writing? Oliver, you conclude from an imperfection that an idea means nothing. Can you see the obvious fallacy in your argument?

Oliver, if push comes to shove: Where would you rather live, in Texas or in Iran? Please give a honest answer. Thank you.


I would rather live in Germany or Canada. America is a dangerous place and Iran may be as well, if the War on Terror goes on. :D

[Oliver]

I'm talking about Iran, not the United States or President Bush.

Would it be okay for Ahmadinejad to eat babies as long as Bush did it too?


No. My point is: Bush is a War-President based on flawed intelligence and even more flawed religious inspirations.

Ahmadinejad is no War President and didn't start some stupid "war on terror's" yet.

It doesn't really matter who said what - but "who does what".

[danielk]

I would rather live in Germany or Canada. America is a dangerous place and Iran may be as well, if the War on Terror goes on. :D

Oliver, please answer the question. Given only the choice between Texas and Iran, where would you rather live?

[jsiv]

No. My point is


No, the point is that every single time someone brings up something negative about Iran, you counter it by saying "so what, Bush is bad too."

[Oliver]

Oliver, please answer the question. Given only the choice between Texas and Iran, where would you rather live?


Do they have universal health-care in Iran? I'm asking because this is important to me to decide about this question.

[danielk]

Do they have universal health-care in Iran? I'm asking because this is important to me to decide about this question.

I don't know. Let's just assume for the moment that they do.

[Oliver]

No, the point is that every single time someone brings up something negative about Iran, you counter it by saying "so what, Bush is bad too."


No necessarily but yes, if my country has "God-hearing" Presidents and "creationistic" presidential candidates , I don't walk around and criticize foreign leaders religions. Especially not if my country goes to war with stupid explanations and flawed informations - and the foreign leaders country doesn't do the same.

[jsiv]

No necessarily but yes, if my country has "God-hearing" Presidents and "creationistic" presidential candidates , I don't walk around and criticize foreign leaders religions. Especially not if my country goes to war with stupid explanations and flawed informations - and the foreign leaders country doesn't do the same.


I'm not American, so I'm not sure how any of this applies to me.

No one is criticizing the Iranian President's personal beliefs anyway. The issue is that their actual laws and political system are based on an oppressive religion (Islam.) Do you really not see the problem with this?

[Oliver]

I don't know. Let's just assume for the moment that they do.


Mhmm, it's a hard decision. On one hand the Iranians have no violent gangs but on the other hand, some pretty harsh laws. Honestly, I don't know. From point of censorship, I tend to prefer Texas. From point of violent foreign policies I tend to choose Teheran.

[Oliver]

I'm not American, so I'm not sure how any of this applies to me.

No one is criticizing the Iranian President's personal beliefs anyway. The issue is that their actual laws are based on an oppressive religion (Islam.) Do you really not see the problem with this?


Of course I see the problem with this. Bit since Iran is heading into a modern industrial Country, it surely isn't our problem, is it? I'm sure the Iranians will reform their society on their own, just like China is much more tending to adopt western POV's then they did during the cold war. It's not our business to paint black people white - simply because they aren't white.

[jsiv]

Mhmm, it's a hard decision. On one hand the Iranians have no violent gangs but on the other hand, some pretty harsh laws. Honestly, I don't know. From point of censorship, I tend to prefer Texas. From point of violent foreign policies I tend to choose Teheran.


Iranian foreign policy involves covert support for terrorist organizations that are engaging in attacks on the State of Israel, as well as groups that operate in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iran is not as peaceful as you seem to think.

[Katana]

No necessarily but yes, if my country has "God-hearing" Presidents and "creationistic" presidential candidates , I don't walk around and criticize foreign leaders religions. Especially not if my country goes to war with stupid explanations and flawed informations - and the foreign leaders country doesn't do the same.


Are you saying that, because Americans are stuck with a stupid president and have had to stand by and watch him make horrible decisions, that we cannot criticize the leaders of other countries?

[danielk]

Of course I see the problem with this. Bit since Iran is heading into a modern industrial Country, it surely isn't our problem, is it? I'm sure the Iranians will reform their society on their own, just like China is much more tending to adopt western POV's then they did during the cold war.

Gotcha Oliver. So, in the end, you do agree that on the whole the Western point of view is more modern and that any development should move in this direction? No evasions, please.

[marksman]

Do they have universal health-care in Iran? I'm asking because this is important to me to decide about this question.
Only if you live in the cities, and it is considered substandard, even by regional standards. Iran has a lower doctor/population ratio, a lower life expectancy, lower literacy rates than Texas and a higher rate of drug abuse (particularly heroin and opium, which is regularly smuggled in from neighboring Afghanistan).

That said, 80% of Iranians have access to this substandard healthcare, while 100% of Texans have access to America's own version of national health care, called the emergency health care system, which is shoddy compared to places with national health care, but still better than what the Iranians can expect. People with a regular job or independent means have access to health care that is favorably comparable to the best systems in the world.

Wealthy Iranians will travel to Europe for health care if they can afford it and have the ppolitical connections necessary to be allowed to travel abroad.

[jsiv]

Of course I see the problem with this. Bit since Iran is heading into a modern industrial Country, it surely isn't our problem, is it?


Everything seems to indicates the opposite. It is becoming more and more religiously extreme. No matter how industrialized or technologically advanced they may be, the ever-increasing restrictions on personal freedoms is very bad.

But oh, never mind, I forgot that you refuse to even believe that Iranians have a government mandated dress code. Did you know that the government even regulates hair cuts?

[marksman]

Bit since Iran is heading into a modern industrial Country, it surely isn't our problem, is it?It is? When did this happen? Last I checked, they were persecuting their university professors and imposing a religious curriculum to replace the previous science-based curriculum.

[Oliver]

Are you saying that, because Americans are stuck with a stupid president and have had to stand by and watch him make horrible decisions, that we cannot criticize the leaders of other countries?


No, I think Americans are able to criticize their government. Unfortunately this happened to late and the reason why I started to read us-sources was to find out why that is. So far I have to blame the two party system and the patriotic media - because the general public doesn't have much influence to speak out against both of my scapegoats unless it's too late.

And I still don't have a clue why everyone adopts the governments view about an declared enemy - meaning a press that debunks such claims by showing the "enemies" side, too.

[marksman]

And I still don't have a clue why everyone adopts the governments view about an declared enemy - meaning a press that debunks such claims by showing the "enemies" side, too.

Yeah, like in Germany, where the media is generally critical of the AMerican system of government, you'd have to be a complete sheep to simply adopt that sort of belief even when repeatedly shown how in error one is! I don't understand that either.

[Oliver]

It is? When did this happen? Last I checked, they were persecuting their university professors and imposing a religious curriculum to replace the previous science-based curriculum.


You mean like oppressing scientists that said that Global Warming is a threat? :confused:

And yes, it looks exactly this way concerning Iran:

554201962695917482

[jsiv]

Why do you continue to defend Iran, Oliver?

Do you not see that it is possible to be critical of both the United States/Bush and Iran? Criticizing one does not mean you have to defend the other.

[Katana]

Why do you continue to defend Iran, Oliver?

Do you not see that it is possible to be critical of both the United States/Bush and Iran? Criticizing one does not mean you have to defend the other.


Thank you.

I have been wondering the same.

[Oliver]

Why do you continue to defend Iran, Oliver?

Do you not see that it is possible to be critical of both the United States/Bush and Iran? Criticizing one does not mean you have to defend the other.


I don't see a threat for America coming from Iran. So of course I use similar examples to portray that America isn't better than Iran whenever someone tries to make this claim.

Iran is just fine. And they have every right to A.Protect their country and B.To reform their Society for their own to survive in a capitalistic world - even if it takes time to reform.

[jsiv]

I don't see a threat for America coming from Iran.

So of course I use similar examples to portray that America isn't better than Iran whenever someone tries to make this claim.


Uhm. Two things,

1.) I have stated many times that I do not see Iran as a threat to the continental US either, only to its own people and other nations in the Middle East, as well as certain American interests in the region.


2.) We aren't even talking about Iran attacking the US here. Are you even reading the thread?


Iran is just fine. And they have every right to A.Protect their country and B.To reform their Society for their own to survive in a capitalistic world - even if it takes time.


So you don't think they are "reforming" their society in the wrong direction? Everything is not fine, Oliver. Do you think it is "fine" that you will get arrested for having the wrong hairstyle, or for not covering your body/hair properly if you're female? Does that happen in America?

[Darth Rotor]

Whatever Bush might say, there is no Jesus first a Dick Cheney telling him what to do. His actions are completely based on his own convictions Dick Cheney's advice.

In Iran on the other hand, we have religious authorities which actually exist in flesh and blood.
There, fixed it for ya. :D
Oliver, please stop misconstruing arguments on purpose.
Do you often ask bears to stop poopiing in the woods?

DR

[Oliver]

Uhm. Two things,

1.) I have stated many times that I do not see Iran as a threat to the continental US either, only to its own people and other nations in the Middle East, as well as certain American interests in the region.


2.) We aren't even talking about Iran attacking the US here. Are you even reading the thread?

So you don't think they are "reforming" their society in the wrong direction? Everything is not fine, Oliver. Do you think it is "fine" that you will get arrested for having the wrong hairstyle, or for not covering your body/hair properly if you're female? Does that happen in America?



1.) I see that you don't see a threat for the US. But you seem to have prejudices nevertheless.

2.) I'm reading this thread and the topic is: There is a new Iranian, English speaking Channel. That's all.

3a.) According to my western moral standards: It's wrong.
3b.) According to my western moral standards: It's wrong to blame other countries moral standards, as well.

[jsiv]

3b.) According to my western moral standards: It's wrong to blame other countries moral standards, as well.


What? It has nothing to do with their "moral standards." It has to do with religious oppression, and it appears to be getting increasingly worse.

I don't get you, Oliver. You disapprove of the things I listed -- things that are happening in Iran today -- but you don't believe that we have any right to criticize them?

[danielk]

3a.) According to my western moral standards: It's wrong.
3b.) According to my western moral standards: It's wrong to blame other countries moral standards, as well.

Thanks for stating your beliefs so clearly. This is exactly where cultural relativism breaks down. You're basing your conviction that blaming other countries moral standards is wrong on your own culture's moral standards. By your very own logic, you'd have no right to assume that the cultural ground you base your relativistic morals on is valid in the first place. Cultural relativism is basically self-refuting, just like epistimological relativism.

[marksman]

You mean like oppressing scientists that said that Global Warming is a threat? :confused:
No, like firing professors and forcing them into early retirement (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118470723900369394.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) for criticizing the government. Like beating and arresting (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/09/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Students.php) students who seek governmental reform. And are beaten and tortured (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/27/iran16512.htm). Like arresting professors (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C27%5Cstory_27-7-2007_pg3_4). Like teaching proaganda (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30464650.htm) instead of history.

And yes, it looks exactly this way concerning Iran
Of course, because flashy images and the BBC report on Irani tourism is much more important than Human Rights Watch reports of, I don't know... facts.

(And who is "oppressing" global warming scientists? Bush's policy on global warming is asinine and denies the facts, but as far as I know he isn't arresting, beating, torturing or even firing professors.)

[Flo]

I would rather live in Germany or Canada. America is a dangerous place and Iran may be as well, if the War on Terror goes on. :D

Do they have universal health-care in Iran? I'm asking because this is important to me to decide about this question.

Mhmm, it's a hard decision. On one hand the Iranians have no violent gangs but on the other hand, some pretty harsh laws. Honestly, I don't know. From point of censorship, I tend to prefer Texas. From point of violent foreign policies I tend to choose Teheran.


You're extraordinarily ignorant of the countries you dare to criticize or promote. I bet you've never been to the USA (more than a few days at best), and I can see you don't know a thing about reality in Iran. For your information, there's a lot of crime there, there are gangs, the worst being the "Guardians of the Revolution", who are under the supervision of your very dear Mr Ahmadinejad and are in charge of suppressing, by any violent means they see fit, any behavior they deem "against Islam". As for more general policies, I suggest you inform yourself about the fate of minorities like the Baha'i, or the Azeris, or the Kurds ...

You're really doing a great job of making a fool of yourself, Oliver.

[marksman]

According to my western moral standards: It's wrong to blame other countries moral standards, as well.

So you won't be criticizing the Bush administration any more? What an odd response.

[Oliver]

What? It has nothing to do with their "moral standards." It has to do with religious oppression, and it appears to be getting increasingly worse.

I don't get you, Oliver. You disapprove of the things I listed -- things that are happening in Iran today -- but you don't believe that we have any right to criticize them?


Religious oppression has something to do with oppression.
Now after watching "Inside Iran", what are the oppressions about? - They talk about it in this BBC-Documentary.

And how annoyed are the people over there about this fact since you are more annoyed about their moral standards then they seem to be for themselves? :confused:

[Oliver]

So you won't be criticizing the Bush administration any more? What an odd response.


Since American citizens pretty much have the same western, moral standards like the rest of the western world, I feel free to criticize Bush, yes. :D

Never mind: only 531 days, 02 Hours, 18 Minutes, 10 seconds (http://newprez.com/index.jsp?key=20070808AM) to go...

[jsiv]

And how annoyed are the people over there about this fact since you are more annoyed about their moral standards then they seem to be for themselves? :confused:


It isn't their moral standards. If it was, you wouldn't see anyone get arrested for having an inappropriate hairstyle, or for not properly covering up, or for being gay, or for criticizing the government, or for listening to western music, etc.

[Beerina]

I also agree with the fact that two bads doesn't make a right.
But at least we hear more than just one side to dig into issues and to imagine how much the different views differ from each other. Basically I don't believe Bush more than I believe in Ahmadinejad anyway. :)

Guy, this "free, independent" news station in Iran is reminiscent of Saddam's "election" just prior to GWII, wherein he won 100% of the vote, with 100% of the population voting.

Will you write to the Guinness Book of World Records to ask why they don't list this as the most lopsided victory in a free society? Indeed, with 100% of the vote of 100% of the population, it is the most mathematically lopsided a victory can even get.

[jsiv]

Since American citizens pretty much have the same western, moral standards like the rest of the western world, I feel free to criticize Bush, yes. :D

Never mind: only 531 days, 02 Hours, 18 Minutes, 10 seconds (http://newprez.com/index.jsp?key=20070808AM) to go...


That makes no sense. You can criticize, say, Norway for mixing religion and government, but not Iran? Because we're culturally and "morally" closer to you?

I'm sorry, Oliver, but that's nonsense. Everyone should be free to criticize anything or anyone they want.

[marksman]

Since American citizens pretty much have the same western, moral standards like the rest of the western world, I feel free to criticize Bush, yes. :DBut you just said Iran is Westernizing. How Western do they have to be before you can criticize them?

Your post-modernism is awfully strange, Oliver. Obviously, anything you feel is worthy of criticism is a moral standard you don't share with the person you're criticizing. Under that standard, you shouldn't be criticizing them. Under your theory, you could only criticize people for things upon which you are in agreement!

[Oliver]

It isn't their moral standards. If it was, you wouldn't see anyone get arrested for having an inappropriate hairstyle, or for not properly covering up, or for being gay, or for criticizing the government, or for listening to western music, etc.


So the death penalty in the US -for example- isn't about moral standards? And yes, that sucks, too.

And, no. It's not our job to change their moral standards by force (Which may not be your stance anyway). If the majority wouldn't like these laws, they wouldn't have voted for their president. You probably should know (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=554201962695917482&q=%22iran%22+inside&total=501&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) that.

[marksman]

It's not our job to change their moral standards.
We're talking about criticism, not change.

[Oliver]

But you just said Iran is Westernizing. How Western do they have to be before you can criticize them?

Your post-modernism is awfully strange, Oliver. Obviously, anything you feel is worthy of criticism is a moral standard you don't share with the person you're criticizing. Under that standard, you shouldn't be criticizing them. Under your theory, you could only criticize people for things upon which you are in agreement!


I would criticize them and go to an Iranian Board instead if their foreign policies were so annoying as the ones America has today. I promise. :)

[jsiv]

So the death penalty in the US -for example- isn't about moral standards? And yes, that sucks, too.


I don't understand what you mean, nor do I support the death penalty.


It's not our job to change their moral standards by force.


I haven't stated that we should change it by force, so I'm really not sure why you are accusing me of this.

[Oliver]

I don't understand what you mean, nor do I support the death penalty.

I haven't stated that we should change it by force, so I'm really not sure why you are accusing me of this.


I'm not accusing you of anything - that's why I mentioned: "(Which may not be your stance anyway)".

Murder, theft, libel, slandering, death-penalty and so on... All laws concerning these issues are based on our moral standards. Didn't you know that?

[jsiv]

I'm not accusing you of anything - that's why I mentioned: "(Which may not be your stance anyway)".


Did you edit it? It doesn't matter. You are the one that brought up force, we are just criticizing Iran -- and justly so.


Murder, theft, libel, slandering, death-penalty and so on... All laws concerning these issues are based on our moral standards. Didn't you know that?


I really have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you really saying that punishing women for not covering their hair and imprisoning people for murder are moral equivalents?

Why are you even trying this line of reasoning. I just don't understand it. Islamic law is not something that should be defended or even attempted to be rationalized.

[Oliver]

Did you edit it? It doesn't matter. You are the one that brought up force, we are just criticizing Iran -- and justly so.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you really saying that punishing women for not covering their hair and imprisoning people for murder are moral equivalents?

Why are you even trying this line of reasoning. I just don't understand it. Islamic law is not something that should be defended or even attempted to be rationalized.


No, I don't say they're equivalent for me growing up within the western moral standards, Jesus and stuff like that. However: Some people in here, even peacefully Canadians, suggested that this is reason enough to interfere militarily.

Islamic law is Islamic law. They're simply more religious than we are - in most parts of the western world. But I honestly believe that a Christian-Right dominating within Congress, Senate and White House also would oppress gay marriage and "free choice" per se, wouldn't they?

[jsiv]

No, I don't say they're equivalent for me growing up within the western moral standards, Jesus and stuff like that. However: Some people in here, even peacefully Canadians, suggested that this is reason enough to interfere militarily.


Well I can only speak for myself.


Islamic law is Islamic law. They're simply more religious than we are - in most parts of the western world. But I honestly believe that a Christian-Right dominating within Congress, Senate and White House also would oppress gay marriage and "free choice" per se, wouldn't they?


What's your point? Do you really not think we should be allowed to criticize both?

They're both 3000 miles away from here, but I won't hesitate a second to criticize either.

[danielk]

But I honestly believe that a Christian-Right dominating within Congress, Senate and White House also would oppress gay marriage and "free choice" per se, wouldn't they?

Yes, probably. And your point is?

[Oliver]

Yes, probably. And your point is?


The point is that a religious majority makes the religious majority rules. That's how it works in Iran and how it would work in America. And you might remember that "God lead me into war" wasn't heavely criticized by the Christian Right Zombies: "OMG! OMG! He hears Jesus!!1!! Praise him!" /Sarcasm

[marksman]

I would criticize them and go to an Iranian Board instead if their foreign policies were so annoying as the ones America has today. I promise. :)
This is an American board? I thought this was a board for the James Randi Educational Foundation, and is populated by people from all over the world.

Maybe you should either take your criticisms to an "American board" or stop being so self-contradictory.

[Oliver]

Well I can only speak for myself.

What's your point? Do you really not think we should be allowed to criticize both?

They're both 3000 miles away from here, but I won't hesitate a second to criticize either.


Of course it's okay to criticize both sides. But since I don't want to see another invasion, which isn't a big issue right now anyway, I counter any misconceptions and misbelieves concerning the "We are better than them"-Point of View.

[Oliver]

This is an American board? I thought this was a board for the James Randi Educational Foundation, and is populated by people from all over the world.

Maybe you should either take your criticisms to an "American board" or stop being so self-contradictory.


Since this Board is based on these Rules:

- You agree to the American definition of morality
- You agree to the American definition of obscenity
- You agree to the American definition of sexuality
- You agree to the American definition of violence
- You agree to the American definition of copyrights

Yes, I think it's an American Board, also hosted on an American server, isn't it?

[marksman]

I don't want to see another invasion, which isn't a big issue right now anyway
Um.... and this isn't self-contradictory... why?

I counter any misconceptions and misbelieves concerning the "We are better than them"-Point of View.
By citing the single iranian-owned news channel as a counterpoint to America's many independently owned news channels?!

And what does this have to do with your consistent refusal to acknowledge legitimate criticism of Iran, and to counter any criticism of Iran with fallacious tu quoque (and poorly reasoned tu quoques at that) arguments?

[Oliver]

Um.... and this isn't self-contradictory... why?

By citing the single iranian-owned news channel as a counterpoint to America's many independently owned news channels?!

And what does this have to do with your consistent refusal to acknowledge legitimate criticism of Iran, and to counter any criticism of Iran with fallacious tu quoque (and poorly reasoned tu quoques at that) arguments?


This isn't self-contradictory because they could play the same game as in the run-up to Iraq - Which is: "Mushroom clouds! Look they are everywhere!" /sarcasm

How do you know that this Station is manipulated. It's your suspicion - so let me ask: Prejudiced much?

I acknowledge the legitimate criticism. But to take a German example: It's dangerous to blame the Jews and accept this ideology without questioning if it's reasonable to blame them for their way of life.

[marksman]

This isn't self-contradictory because they could play the same game as in the run-up to Iraq
That doesn't make your statement less self-contradictory. You said your purpose in posting is because you don't want an invasion, which you don't think will happen.

How do you know that this Station is manipulated.
I didn't say it was manipulated. I said it was state-run, and by your own words you were citing it to refute some hypothetical idea that America is better than Iran. How does contrasting a single state-run news agency with America's many privately run news agencies refute the statement you contend was the impetus for your post?

Your argument doesn't make any sense and rather than try to address the argument, you mischaracterize mine.

I acknowledge the legitimate criticism.
No, you really don't Oliver. You recharacterize it to make it look like we're saying something we're not. I did not say Iranian news was manipulated (I didn't say they weren't). All I said is your professed justification for this thread makes no sense.

But to take a German example: It's dangerous to blame the Jews and accept this ideology without questioning if it's reasonable to blame them for their way of life.
Your sentence makes no grammatical sense. What is "this ideology"? How is this pertinent to our discussion? It feels like once again you are trying to deflect having to answer valid criticisms by raising poorly worded irrelevancies.

[Undesired Walrus]

The new Iranian, English-Speaking channel started some days ago. Now we finally can get the other side of the propaganda, too - and you also can watch their program via streaming.

To stream their Program:
mms://217.218.67.244/presslive

Their Homepage:
http://www.presstv.ir/

Enjoy. :boxedin:

Cheers man.

[Oliver]

Cheers man.


Cheers. :) Now you see the other side of your Jihadists-lectures, too - with live-images from Iran. :)

[Oliver]

That doesn't make your statement less self-contradictory. You said your purpose in posting is because you don't want an invasion, which you don't think will happen.

I didn't say it was manipulated. I said it was state-run, and by your own words you were citing it to refute some hypothetical idea that America is better than Iran. How does contrasting a single state-run news agency with America's many privately run news agencies refute the statement you contend was the impetus for your post?

Your argument doesn't make any sense and rather than try to address the argument, you mischaracterize mine.

No, you really don't Oliver. You recharacterize it to make it look like we're saying something we're not. I did not say Iranian news was manipulated (I didn't say they weren't). All I said is your professed justification for this thread makes no sense.

Your sentence makes no grammatical sense. What is "this ideology"? How is this pertinent to our discussion? It feels like once again you are trying to deflect having to answer valid criticisms by raising poorly worded irrelevancies.


No. My main agenda to post in here is to understand the American society to draw conclusions about their foreign policies and lacking oppositions against heroic wars that aren't heroic.

And I'm opposed to prejudices based on the fallacy that "others are worse than us", which is very visible in the US, no matter if concerning War, Evildoers, Gays, Free Choice, Immigrants, Blacks and other Issues.

The reason for me to address my opinion is because supporting prejudices is what lead the US into the Iraq-War. And while Iran isn't an official Enemy that has to be officially fought yet - the tendencies point into this direction. I wonder that you didn't notice that - so let me ask:

Since when is Iran a threat? When did you get aware of this official explanation from political side? Do you even know when the issue Iran came up - or did you swallow it without noticing it?

[marksman]

No. My main agenda to post in here is to understand the American society to draw conclusions about their foreign policies
That's not what you said earlier in this thread. In post 76, in response to the question, "What's your point", you wrote:

I counter any misconceptions and misbelieves concerning the "We are better than them"-Point of View.
So, were you lying or mistaken when you wrote that it was your point in posting the existence of the Iranian news agency that you were countering the "We [presumably the US] are better than them [ppresumably Iran]"?

And I'm opposed to prejudices based on the fallacy that "others are worse than us"
How is the existence of a state-run news agency in Iran a counter to the idea that Iran is worse than the US?

Since when is Iran a threat?
When did I say Iran is a threat, Oliver? (Hint: I never did.) I am asking you why you think your initial post is relevant to the point you claim you are trying to make.

So far you have identified two purposes.
One: to counter the idea that AMerica is Iran. However, your initial post doesn't support that idea.

Two: To understand America. However, you haven't even demonstrated an ability to read the posts of the Americans who respond to you. Instead you impute ideas that were not expressed int hose posts. For example, you accused me of claiming that Iran was manipulating its state-run media, even though I never said that. You also insinuated I called Iran a threat, even though I never did. It is mischaracterizations like this that evidence that you are either uninterested in or incapable of understanding other people's points of view because you don't read or understand them when they are given to you.

When did you get aware of this official explanation from political side? Do you even know when the issue Iran came up - or did you swallow it without noticing it?
Your first question is not grammatically meaningful. I don't understand the question. The question of Iran "came up", in the context of American foreign policy, some time in 1935, when it stopped calling itself "Persia" and began calling itself "Iran." I wasn't alive then, so I personally become "aware" of the existence of Iran in the 1970's when the news first began reporting about the student revolution. Why are any of these questions pertinent, Oliver. Once again, you are trying to deflect criticism of your posts with irrelevancies.

[Katana]

No. My main agenda to post in here is to understand the American society to draw conclusions about their foreign policies and lacking oppositions against heroic wars that aren't heroic.

And I'm opposed to prejudices based on the fallacy that "others are worse than us", which is very visible in the US, no matter if concerning War, Evildoers, Gays, Free Choice, Immigrants, Blacks and other Issues.

The reason for me to address my opinion is because supporting prejudices is what lead the US into the Iraq-War. And while Iran isn't an official Enemy that has to be officially fought yet - the tendencies point into this direction. I wonder that you didn't notice that - so let me ask:

Since when is Iran a threat? When did you get aware of this official explanation from political side? Do you even know when the issue Iran came up - or did you swallow it without noticing it?


To me, you don't appear to be interested in understanding American society at all. It seems more like you have formulated an awful lot of opinions about this country and its citizens from afar.

[jsiv]

Of course it's okay to criticize both sides.


You are doing it again. You have to stop looking at this as America vs Whoever. In the particular argument I was making, there are no sides. If there is something in the US worth worrying about, you criticize it. Same with Iran, or Norway, or Spain. It is not a competition, and there is no score that has to be evened out. Are you incapable of understanding that one can criticize the two countries independently?


[...]I counter any misconceptions and misbelieves concerning the "We are better than them"-Point of View.


I consider our Norwegian way of life to be far, far better than Iran from a moral and freedom perspective. We let women wear whatever they want, and we let people have whatever haircut they want. I think that does make us better. Is that a misconception or "misbelief?" I don't think so.

[Oliver]

To me, you don't appear to be interested in understanding American society at all. It seems more like you have formulated an awful lot of opinions about this country and its citizens from afar.


And you're right if you meant US-Politics in general.
Where did I address the average citizen? I still believe there are no big differenences between "Average-Joe's" mind in the US, in Iran or here in Europe. The differences are politics and a strange media system.

[Undesired Walrus]

Now you see the other side of your Jihadists-lectures, too -

I give you a compliment, and I get this!

Who says I dont regardless?

[jsiv]

Cheers. :) Now you see the other side of your Jihadists-lectures, too - with live-images from Iran. :)


I doubt you'll get to see much of the jihadi and "death to Israel" material on a sanitized English-speaking channel.

That tends to be limited to Fari and Arabic-language media, to keep westerners unaware as much as possible.

[Oliver]

I give you a compliment, and I get this!

Who says I dont regardless?


Well, you're assumption of the Jihad-Threat seemed to be exaggerated - so the new channel might be a chance to see sides of this issue you didn't see before. That wasn't meant sarcastically.

[Pardalis]

How's Yvonne Ridley doing?

[Oliver]

I doubt you'll get to see much of the jihadi and "death to Israel" material on a sanitized English-speaking channel.

That tends to be limited to Fari and Arabic-language media, to keep westerners unaware as much as possible.


Well, so far I saw a lot of Israel criticism on this channel. Just take a look for your own:
mms://217.218.67.244/presslive (mms://217.218.67.244/presslive)

And yes, I wouldn't wonder if the Iranian station wouldn't hide their dirt in the same way CNN-International would. That's why I think it is indeed an advantage to hear the arguments on both sides.

[Oliver]

How's Yvonne Ridley doing?


She's fine. But you would know that if she wouldn't be on your "I can't accept other opinions but I lurk anyway"-list. :boggled: :rolleyes:

[danielk]

No. My main agenda to post in here is to understand the American society to draw conclusions about their foreign policies and lacking oppositions against heroic wars that aren't heroic.

Oliver, for the umpteenth time, you are not a neutral observer if you just assume a priori that American foreign policy is wrong in its intentions.

And I'm opposed to prejudices based on the fallacy that "others are worse than us", which is very visible in the US, [...]

The statement "others are worse than us" is an invalid premise, not a logical fallacy. The statement "others are not worse than us" is likewise an invalid premise, though. What you fail to realize is that either statement can be a valid conclusion of a perfectly logical argument. In other words: Oliver, you are confusing a desirable state of mind at the beginning of an objective examination with the result of that examination. Is is not valid to restrict the set of possible conclusions to one, namely "the positions examined are equally good or bad".

Oliver, please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Read up on philosophy, in particular the debate between objectivist and subjectivist positions. You seem to hold this particular notion that skepticism means to question everything and hold nothing for granted, not even rationality itself. But outside philosophy skepticism usually describes a world view based on rationality and empiricism, two concepts strung together in the scientific method. In my opinion, radical skepticism of the kind you espouse doesn't hold water when taken to its logical conclusion. We couldn't even have this argument without implicitly agreeing on some ground rules.

The reason for me to address my opinion is because supporting prejudices is what lead the US into the Iraq-War. And while Iran isn't an official Enemy that has to be officially fought yet - the tendencies point into this direction.

Assumptions, Oliver, assumptions. At least you finally agree now that you, too, hold an opinion. That's at least something after hundreds of posts going back and forth.

I wonder that you didn't notice that - so let me ask:

Since when is Iran a threat? When did you get aware of this official explanation from political side? Do you even know when the issue Iran came up - or did you swallow it without noticing it?

Oliver, if you must know: I started out as a leftist, espousing exactly the same cultural relativism as you do now. At one point I even proclaimed in a debate that human rights are relative. Today I think this was an incredibly cynic view to hold. So, no, I don't just hold my current opinion because I had never thought of questioning it before. Exactly the opposite is true. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending - that's not the intent. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong because I now believe that I was wrong about the same thing in the past, or because I'm more experienced or whatever. That would be a logical fallacy. All I ask of you - please, for the love of the FSM - is to stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is not skeptical enough to see through what you call "propaganda". Make use of your pair of scales.

[Undesired Walrus]

Well, you're assumption of the Jihad-Threat seemed to be exaggerated - so the new channel might be a chance to see sides of this issue you didn't see before.

As anyone can tell you here, I exhaustively defend Islam, even to the extent when my defence becomes somewhat foolish. I often claim that Syed Qutb has yet gone loudly unchallanged in ideological fields, and thus make the rather politically incorrect statement that his ideals are thus rightfully appealing to young impressionable men and women.

I am by no means mearly limited to my interest in Islamism Oliver. On the side, I study pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, and my favourite poet is the Syrian Nizar Qabbani who died in 1998.

I listen to Hamza Yusuf, a moderate Muslim from America, who puts a different side on Islam in comparison to radical chaps. So dont get all elitist and moan about me not seeing the other side.

I just think it is foolish to ignore the enormous strength and support for Bin Ladenism and Qutbism in the world today. It's vast.

[Matteo Martini]

I also think it is important for Oliver to realise that two wrongs do not make a right.


Could not agree more.
But..
Not only for Oliver.
For RandFan, Segosaur, Ziggurat, Ion, let alone Darth Rotor..

[Earthborn]

On the side, I study pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, and my favourite poet is the Syrian Nizar Qabbani who died in 1998.A pre-Islamic poet who died in 1998? I'll have whatever he had...

[fuelair]

I also agree with the fact that two bads doesn't make a right.
But at least we hear more than just one side to dig into issues and to imagine how much the different views differ from each other. Basically I don't believe Bush more than I believe in Ahmadinejad anyway. :)
Nobody with sense believes Bush. Bush is not US media (watch Keith Olberman some time, or Lou Dobbs to catch that point) Bush is an anal orifice (and that is kind). But...............

[Oliver]

Nobody with sense believes Bush. Bush is not US media (watch Keith Olberman some time, or Lou Dobbs to catch that point) Bush is an anal orifice (and that is kind). But...............


The correct phrase might be "believes Bush anymore". But Fox still pretends the opposite - even if I doubt that even them believe him anymore. But somehow they seem to be to influenced to attack him broadly - thanks to the pro-republican agenda. In a democratic Media, the papers would be filled with rants about Bush, I highly guess.

[Oliver]

As anyone can tell you here, I exhaustively defend Islam, even to the extent when my defence becomes somewhat foolish. I often claim that Syed Qutb has yet gone loudly unchallanged in ideological fields, and thus make the rather politically incorrect statement that his ideals are thus rightfully appealing to young impressionable men and women.

I am by no means mearly limited to my interest in Islamism Oliver. On the side, I study pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, and my favourite poet is the Syrian Nizar Qabbani who died in 1998.

I listen to Hamza Yusuf, a moderate Muslim from America, who puts a different side on Islam in comparison to radical chaps. So dont get all elitist and moan about me not seeing the other side.

I just think it is foolish to ignore the enormous strength and support for Bin Ladenism and Qutbism in the world today. It's vast.


I appreciate your open mind regarding this issue and I apologize if I had the wrong impression - but I still don't see the Bin Laden threat that would justify and remarks like "The threat of the century". And only one reason why I don't believe it is because the term Terrorism is used in such a excessive manner from US-Politicians, that Terrorism sounds even more danger than the former "Red" threat. This alone is pretty ridiculous - not even mentioning the lack of terror attacks in the US since and before 2001.

[Undesired Walrus]

I appreciate your open mind regarding this issue and I apologize if I had the wrong impression - but I still don't see the Bin Laden threat that would justify and remarks like "The threat of the century". And only one reason why I don't believe it is because the term Terrorism is used in such a excessive manner from US-Politicians, that Terrorism sounds even more danger than the former "Red" threat. This alone is pretty ridiculous - not even mentioning the lack of terror attacks in the US since and before 2001.

Okay okay, I appreciate that but let's not get all lovey duvey and make that known in a disclamer before each post. I don't want to have to start apologising for insulting you all the time, as I do feel it is justified. As Muhammed says, 'But do not fight them by attacking them first, for Allah loves not the transgressors.' I don't feel I am transgressing with you.

There is an ideological battle being waged. Between the West, and the East. Between rule by man, and rule by God. I understand people who say God is on his way out, but I'm not sure you really have to be all that insanely religious to want legislation from Allah. In most cases, I am sure it is control first, religion second. Who's to say that democracy is not on it's way out? Hardly anyone votes anymore.

After all, the secular Turkey is gaining support in Islamists. Indonesia has gone the same way. Ditto Iran. In a way, Britain is more Islamic than Turkey. You can wear the Hijab and have a beard, unlike Turkey and our friends in France.

I think an Islamist Britain is unlikely, but, well... who knows..

I understand what you say about the 'Red threat', but this is different Oliver. Back then everyone was terrified of having a communist around them. It proved it was widely untrue. But now, in places like London, there really is a *********** massive amount of Muslims who want Sharia Law, and a smaller, but still large amount who want to do it by force.

I still don't understand this 'Lack of terror threats in America' argument. Look at the rest of the world. Close to 800,000 people, maybe a million have had their blood spilled by Radical Islam. I think people all want to believe America is the biggest target in Bin Laden's mind. In reality, he is much more concerned with Israel. He simply uses America as a propoganda tool, and it works very very well. If he had intended bombs in supermarkets and gas stations in the US, it would have happened by now.

With America, as we have seen, he plans spectacular attacks to try and get people, sadly, like you saying 'Look at how pissed off they are, lets get out!'. Thus why intelligence suggests a nuclear attack.

I mean, were you not even around for the failed trans-atlantic liquid bomb plots? It failed, but that doesn't mean the burning, roaring motive isn't there.

[Oliver]

Okay okay, I appreciate that but let's not get all lovey duvey and make that known in a disclamer before each post. I don't want to have to start apologising for insulting you all the time, as I do feel it is justified. As Muhammed says, 'But do not fight them by attacking them first, for Allah loves not the transgressors.' I don't feel I am transgressing with you.

There is an ideological battle being waged. Between the West, and the East. Between rule by man, and rule by God. I understand people who say God is on his way out, but I'm not sure you really have to be all that insanely religious to want legislation from Allah. In most cases, I am sure it is control first, religion second. Who's to say that democracy is not on it's way out? Hardly anyone votes anymore.

After all, the secular Turkey is gaining support in Islamists. Indonesia has gone the same way. Ditto Iran. In a way, Britain is more Islamic than Turkey. You can wear the Hijab and have a beard, unlike Turkey and our friends in France.

I think an Islamist Britain is unlikely, but, well... who knows..

I understand what you say about the 'Red threat', but this is different Oliver. Back then everyone was terrified of having a communist around them. It proved it was widely untrue. But now, in places like London, there really is a *********** massive amount of Muslims who want Sharia Law, and a smaller, but still large amount who want to do it by force.


In places like London this might be true - but I have to restrain from answering your post by repeating myself since it may be considered as "spamming the board" and it's off-topic to this particular issue.

[Undesired Walrus]

In places like London this might be true - but I have to restrain from answering your post by repeating myself since it may be considered as "spamming the board" and it's off-topic to this particular issue.

Well seeing how London is one of the most, if not the, most famous city in the world, I'd be a bit concerned, wouldn't you?

[Oliver]

Well seeing how London is one of the most, if not the, most famous city in the world, I'd be a bit concerned, wouldn't you?


"A bit", yes. But I also wouldn't support to do Terrorists a favor by shifting to Terror-Focused politics while pretty much ignoring other issues.

[Katana]

"A bit", yes. But I also wouldn't support to do Terrorists a favor by shifting to Terror-Focused politics while pretty much ignoring other issues.


Who is ignoring other issues?

[jsiv]

Are we ignoring "other issues?" What issues do you feel aren't getting enough attention?

[Oliver]

Who is ignoring other issues?


9/11 pretty much shifted all issues in the background. Even the issue that Iraq actually wasn't a threat. But this is off-topic and may be considered as spamming the board with opinions I already made in several, other Threads.

[Segnosaur]

9/11 pretty much shifted all issues in the background. Even the issue that Iraq actually wasn't a threat. But this is off-topic and may be considered as spamming the board with opinions I already made in several, other Threads.

You were asked who is ignoring other issues, and what other issues are being ignored. Answering questions asked of you is not 'spamming'.

You referring to the government? Gee, I looked up the list of bills passed by the 110th session of congress... On just the first page, I found 14 bills that either dealt with 9/11, or with some aspect of the military or general diplomacy, but 36 that dealt with non-terrorist related issues. (By comparison, there were 12 bills dealing with education matters, 19 dealing with health or the environment, and a bunch more dealing with civil rights, finances., etc. Granted, this was a small sample, but it looks as if the government IS giving attention to more than just terrorism.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery/?Opt=t&Db=110

Or are you referring to the media ignoring issues other than terrorism? Well, lets see... I went to CNN.com, looked at their 'headline news', and found no references at all to 9/11 or terrorism in general (at least not on their main page). If you look around a little, you will find references to Iraq (including deaths happening there), but its not as if the media is 'obsessed' with 9/11.

[Tailgater]

I would criticize them and go to an Iranian Board instead if their foreign policies were so annoying as the ones America has today. I promise. :)

Really? So what are all your other threads about? Hmm, lets see. Healthcare, lobbyists, party-system, media, etc. What part does foreign policy play in these threads? Or are these more "annoying" than Iran too?

[Darth Rotor]

Could not agree more.
But..
Not only for Oliver.
For RandFan, Segosaur, Ziggurat, Ion, let alone Darth Rotor..

Since I am already aware that two wrongs don't make a right, you are invited to retract that falsehood, Matteo.

Do you want a reputation as a liar?

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Since I am already aware that two wrongs don't make a right, you are invited to retract that falsehood, Matteo.

Do you want a reputation as a liar?

DR

I was only stating my opinion, of course..

[WildCat]

In a democratic Media, the papers would be filled with rants about Bush, I highly guess.
So you agree that the US has a "democratic media".

[WildCat]

Even the issue that Iraq actually wasn't a threat.
What issue? Who was arguing that Iraq was a threat? :confused:

[RandFan]

For RandFan..

I have apologized for my support the war.
I have said that it was wrong.
I've conceded that there is no WMD.
I've conceded that Bush and his adminstration have made many mistakes.
I've made many of the consesions without any solicitation. They were often voluntary.

I don't excuse the excesses and sins of my nation. No one has had to pry consessions out of me when Bush [rule 8]ed up in many instances.

I simply note the hypocricay of those who never vocalize objections to anything other than what America does. It gets awfully old comming here to this forum. If one didn't know better it would seem that America is a cess pool of coruption and just above the status of third world. It's not true.

We deserve critisism. I would just like some perspective and honesty about America. That's all.

[Oliver]

What issue? Who was arguing that Iraq was a threat? :confused:


The "Mushroomclouders" and, by the way, the non-democratic press buying this scare propaganda.

[Flo]

The "Mushroomclouders" and, by the way, the non-democratic press buying this scare propaganda.



which was by far not the majority of the media, even at the time, which you would know had you been a bit curious about the issues you're discussing, and were you a bit honest once you've been made aware of the fact (i.e. actually reading some of the not-pro-Bush press whose links you've been provided with by many members of this forum. And no, I'm not going to do your homework and find them again for you.)

BTW, calling "non democratic" a press that merely agrees with / believes a government is being either very myopic or very dishonest, especially when you dare compare it to a press that is under direct threat and orders of another.

[Oliver]

which was by far not the majority of the media, even at the time, which you would know had you been a bit curious about the issues you're discussing, and were you a bit honest once you've been made aware of the fact (i.e. actually reading some of the not-pro-Bush press whose links you've been provided with by many members of this forum. And no, I'm not going to do your homework and find them again for you.)

BTW, calling "non democratic" a press that merely agrees with / believes a government is being either very myopic or very dishonest, especially when you dare compare it to a press that is under direct threat and orders of another.


I found no evidence that any mainstream media during the months after 9/11 or in the run up to war opposed the Government. That of course doesn't mean that a local paper in Little Rock didn't say that all of that is crap - but I'm referring to the media meaning the mass-media that most people all over the country get.

Now if you like to make a new thread about it, I'm glad to dissect this issue - but since Darat warned me that I'm close to breach Rule6 (spamming), I don't want to address this probably off-topic issue any further in this thread.

[Flo]

I have apologized for my support the war.
I have said that it was wrong.
I've conceded that there is no WMD.
I've conceded that Bush and his adminstration have made many mistakes.
I've made many of the consesions without any solicitation. They were often voluntary.

I don't excuse the excesses and sins of my nation. No one has had to pry consessions out of me when Bush [rule 8]ed up in many instances.

I simply note the hypocricay of those who never vocalize objections to anything other than what America does. It gets awfully old comming here to this forum. If one didn't know better it would seem that America is a cess pool of coruption and just above the status of third world. It's not true.

We deserve critisism. I would just like some perspective and honesty about America. That's all.


Every single country on Earth deserves criticism. Loving one's country has more to do about holding it to a high standard and addressing the areas that need changing than about criticizing other countries. Listening to criticism from others is a good thing, but how can you listen when all you hear is the kind of shrill one-sided, uninformed ranting à la Oliver ? It is only by showing perspective and honesty in our criticism of America that we can hope it will be heard and responded to.

This, plus personnally knowing a number of Americans, plus reading messages like yours, is why I take the time to answer "andouilles" like Oliver. On any other occasions, I wouldn't even waste time to give him the time of the day.

[Flo]

I found no evidence that any mainstream media during the months after 9/11 or in the run up to war opposed the Government. That of course doesn't mean that a local paper in Little Rock didn't say that all of that is crap - but I'm referring to the media meaning the mass-media that most people all over the country get.

You didn't find it because you didn't look for it, even after being made aware of its existence (look for the thread called something like "Oliver, this is America").

Now if you like to make a new thread about it, I'm glad to dissect this issue - but since Darat warned me that I'm close to breach Rule6 (spamming), I don't want to address this probably off-topic issue any further in this thread.

It is central to your only issue, America-bashing: before you can criticize something, you have to inform yourself about it. All you're doing (again) is to whine, evade, and dodge any responsibility for your ignorance and your refusal to do your homework.

[RandFan]

I found no evidence that any mainstream media during the months after 9/11 or in the run up to war opposed the Government. That of course doesn't mean that a local paper in Little Rock didn't say that all of that is crap - but I'm referring to the media meaning the mass-media that most people all over the country get.And you know what the mass media was saying because?

[Matteo Martini]

I have apologized for my support the war.
I have said that it was wrong.
I've conceded that there is no WMD.
I've conceded that Bush and his adminstration have made many mistakes.
I've made many of the consesions without any solicitation. They were often voluntary.

I don't excuse the excesses and sins of my nation. No one has had to pry consessions out of me when Bush [rule 8]ed up in many instances.


I agree with all, with a simple change:

I've conceded that Bush and his adminstration have made crimes.


I simply note the hypocricay of those who never vocalize objections to anything other than what America does. It gets awfully old comming here to this forum. If one didn't know better it would seem that America is a cess pool of coruption and just above the status of third world. It's not true.

We deserve critisism. I would just like some perspective and honesty about America. That's all.

I said in this forum that there anre many things good about America.
I think that America was the main cause to end nazism and communism.
I think that America has been one of the best ( or, less worse ) superpower in human history, I got almost punched by a Colombian, whan I said that, in BA
My favoutire company is located in Texas.
I think that the US politics is far ( very far ) better than the Italian one, even this is not a big compliment to say..

[WildCat]

I agree with all, with a simple change:

I've conceded that Bush and his adminstration have made crimes.



I said in this forum that there anre many things good about America.
I think that America was the main cause to end nazism and communism.
I think that America has been one of the best ( or, less worse ) superpower in human history, I got almost punched by a Colombian, whan I said that, in BA
My favoutire company is located in Texas.
I think that the US politics is far ( very far ) better than the Italian one, even this is not a big compliment to say..
Wait a minute... my backhanded compliment meter just went off! ;)

[Matteo Martini]

Wait a minute... my backhanded compliment meter just went off! ;)

?????

[Undesired Walrus]

W..Why does everyone speak with an English accent on this?

[Elizabeth I]

Mhmm, it's a hard decision. On one hand the Iranians have no violent gangs but on the other hand, some pretty harsh laws. Honestly, I don't know. From point of censorship, I tend to prefer Texas. From point of violent foreign policies I tend to choose Teheran.

Texas doesn't have a foreign policy. It's only one of fifty united states. The United States has a foreign policy. That's like analyzing the foreign policy of Bavaria, Saxony or Bremen.

[Oliver]

Texas doesn't have a foreign policy. It's only one of fifty united states. The United States has a foreign policy. That's like analyzing the foreign policy of Bavaria, Saxony or Bremen.


Nitpicking doesn't necessarily mean that you missed the point - which, and I'm sorry to point out impoliteness here, doesn't seem to be your problem since you're an intelligent being from what I know about you.

[Darth Rotor]

I think that America has been one of the best ( or, less worse ) superpower in human history
Given that superpowers, when they shrug, can now and again cause tremors in other lands, perhaps "least worst" is the best a superpower can hope for achieving as a grade. No matter what you do, someone will be unhappy with it, absent giving away wealth. ;)
I got almost punched by a Colombian, whan I said that, in BA
Given that Colombians have been known to kill soccer players and refs over match results, I'd say you got away lightly, but thanks for taking one for us. :)
My favoutire company is located in Texas.
So is my favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys, and my favorite basketball team, the Spurs.
I think that the US politics is far ( very far ) better than the Italian one, even this is not a big compliment to say..
I found Italian politics to be far more entertaining and unpredictable than American politics, what with the rapid rises and falls of various governments, but it struck me that the Italian government does not need to tell Italians how to be Italian-- they simply know, and have a low immigration/assimilation rate -- so that the government provides as much entertainment as it does function. It seems to me that far too often, since WW II, the American government, pick a party, spends considerable time trying to tell the American people how to be Americans.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

No matter what you do, someone will be unhappy with it, absent giving away wealth. ;)


The US have large margins of improvement


Given that Colombians have been known to kill soccer players and refs over match results, I'd say you got away lightly, but thanks for taking one for us. :)


Your comments have so low IQ that do not deserve reply


I found Italian politics to be far more entertaining and unpredictable than American politics, what with the rapid rises and falls of various governments, but it struck me that the Italian government does not need to tell Italians how to be Italian-- they simply know, and have a low immigration/assimilation rate -- so that the government provides as much entertainment as it does function. It seems to me that far too often, since WW II, the American government, pick a party, spends considerable time trying to tell the American people how to be Americans.
DR

I do not get it.
But, that is not unusual here..

[jsiv]

Tehran Cracks Down On Dress Code In Summer Heat (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/19A93C39-5851-4229-925A-E1C5840923A5.html)

"More than 527,000 people have been warned, over 20,000 have been arrested and then released conditionally, and a total of 2,265 cases -- including men and women -- have been presented to judiciary sources for trial on the charge of noncompliance with the Islamic dress code," according to deputy Iranian police chief Hossein Zolfaghari. He added that hundreds of shops and dress manufacturers have also been shut down for providing "improper clothes."

[Matteo Martini]

Tehran Cracks Down On Dress Code In Summer Heat (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/19A93C39-5851-4229-925A-E1C5840923A5.html)

This **** will soon end.

Edited to add asterisks.

Without Bush doing anything.


Please do not use partially-masked profanity. Thanks.

[Darth Rotor]

The US have large margins of improvement
Did you think of this yourself, or did you cut and paste it from somewhere else?
Your comments have so low IQ that do not deserve reply
You missed another joke, it seems, and a friendly "thank you." I try to be nice, and you come back with an insult. Not well done, amico.
I do not get it. But, that is not unusual here..
Too bad. I was commenting on how the roles of government, and forms, differ in Italy and the US, and how in some ways the Italian government serves Italians better than the US serves Americans.

Try reading it again.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

This **** will soon end.

Edited to add asterisks.

Without Bush doing anything.


Please do not use partially-masked profanity. Thanks.

Is using not-masked-at-all profanity OK?
Ah! Ah!
What is wrong with excrementia, after all, is our body which produces it??
OK, OK..
Just joking.
Do not get it bad, I will not use that bad word again..
Sorry..

[Matteo Martini]

You missed another joke, it seems, and a friendly "thank you." I try to be nice, and you come back with an insult. Not well done, amico.
DR

How can I get if it is a joke or a racist comment on my Colombian friends??
If it was a joke, I did not get it, sorry..

[Katana]

Is using not-masked-at-all profanity OK?
Ah! Ah!
What is wrong with excrementia, after all, is our body which produces it??
OK, OK..
Just joking.
Do not get it bad, I will not use that bad word again..
Sorry..

:D

I know. I thought about that after I wrote it.

Thing is, if you had written the word out in its entirety, it would look just as it does now.

[Matteo Martini]

Too bad. I was commenting on how the roles of government, and forms, differ in Italy and the US, and how in some ways the Italian government serves Italians better than the US serves Americans.

Try reading it again.

DR

I completely disagree.

In Italy, we had a seven-time-Prime Minister who is a Mafia Man ( Andreotti ), a Minister of Justice who went to the wedding of a famous Mafia Man, the ex-Prime Minister ( Berlusca ), who has been sent to trial a number of times in many different nations, and always managed to escape, and he is friend of corrupted and Mafia People ( Dell' Utri, Previti, Cuffaro, .. ).
Probably, you do not know enough about Italy, sorry..

[Matteo Martini]

:D

I know. I thought about that after I wrote it.

Thing is, if you had written the word out in its entirety, it would look just as it does now.

I do not get it.
Writing the word entirely would have been OK?
I would be OK to write the word entirely, I do not understand why Americans put the **s in order to not write the word completely, but the meaning is anyway fully understandable.
If you want to say something, just say it, por Dios!!

[Darth Rotor]

I completely disagree.

In Italy, we had a seven-time-Prime Minister who is a Mafia Man ( Andreotti ), a Minister of Justice who went to the wedding of a famous Mafia Man, the ex-Prime Minister ( Berlusca ), who has been sent to trial a number of times in many different nations, and always managed to escape, and he is friend of corrupted and Mafia People ( Dell' Utri, Previti, Cuffaro, .. ).
Probably, you do not know enough about Italy, sorry..
We have had our share of crooks in government, Matteo. It's not a problem confined to Italy. Spiro Agnew and Huey Long come to mind, but I fully admit that the problem Rome has with Mafia influence in government is a different problem than Americans deal with, though we too have problems with organized crime. It merely takes different forms. However, corruption

WASN'T WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

Why did you move the goal posts?

That is sort of like me saying "I like coffee in the morning" and you telling me "Yes, but too much Red Bull is bad for you." Che?

DR

[Matteo Martini]

We have had our share of crooks in government, Matteo. It's not a problem confined to Italy. Spiro Agnew and Huey Long come to mind, but I fully admit that the problem Rome has with Mafia influence in government is a different problem than Americans deal with, though we too have problems with organized crime. It merely takes different forms. However, corruption

WASN'T WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

Why did you move the goal posts?

That is sort of like me saying "I like coffee in the morning" and you telling me "Yes, but too much Red Bull is bad for you." Che?

DR

I beg to repeat, the political situation in Italy is much worse than in the US>
But, let` s drop the point..

[OMGturt1es]

Could not agree more.
But..
Not only for Oliver.
For RandFan, Segosaur, Ziggurat, Ion, let alone Darth Rotor..

i've not read this entire thread, and i'll not have time to, either, but i found this comment in poor taste. moreover, in the years that i've lurked on these forums, i've found randfan to be more likely than just about anyone to concede when out argued, so i find it quite difficult to believe that he does not understand the concept of "two wrongs != right".

[Oliver]

*snip* If you want to say something, just say it, por Dios!!



That's my point as well. If you feel angry - don't crucify yourself and just let others know about how you feel -of course: in a fair&balanced relation to politeness inasmuch that you don't use swearing for every kind of "peanuts".

So the invention of **** (Asterisks) and *Beep's* was obviously necessary because a general lack of politeness, they simply were and are being using in a too regular manner - which the censor tries to prohibit - without success, by the way.

[/End of short, explaining derail]

Now even if it might have been interesting to hear if you agree with people who would say that this is straightway stupid to censor a widely praised fr** sp**ch, but this would completely derail this thread, the reason why I responded to your post is this:


Funny enough:

The Iranian Station has no problems* to censor such words as I witnessed some hours ago. :eye-poppi
Now *THAT is an unbelievably ironic fact, isn't it? :D

Who knows, maybe the Iranians just have better manners? :confused:

[Matteo Martini]

i've not read this entire thread, and i'll not have time to, either, but i found this comment in poor taste. moreover, in the years that i've lurked on these forums, i've found randfan to be more likely than just about anyone to concede when out argued, so i find it quite difficult to believe that he does not understand the concept of "two wrongs != right".

Well, maybe it is me, who is taken into the "two wrongs != right" thing..

[Matteo Martini]

Funny enough: The Iranian Station has no problems* to censor such words as I witnessed some hours ago. :eye-poppi
Now *THAT is an unbelievably ironic fact, isn't it? :D

Who knows, maybe the Iranians just have better manners? :confused:

Yes, but they censor women images, uh?
Again, two bads do not make one good -

[jsiv]

:confused:


So did you see the article from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that I linked to? Does Press TV report on things like that? Why not? You'd think it would be important.

[Oliver]

Yes, but they censor women images, uh?
Again, two bads do not make one good -


What do you expect? Pornos on a news channel?

So did you see the article from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that I linked to? Does Press TV report on things like that? Why not? You'd think it would be important.


I don't watch this 24/7 and I didn't see a report about the dress codes yet.
Does that mean they don't report about that? Absolutely NOT.

So? Do you have evidence that they wouldn't report about it? Absolutely NOT.

[jsiv]

I don't watch this 24/7 and I didn't see a report about the dress codes yet.
Does that mean they don't report about that? Absolutely NOT.

So? Do you have evidence that they wouldn't report about it? Absolutely NOT.


I don't have any evidence that pixies aren't real either. But unlike pixies, Press TV actually has a searchable website of articles.

So what is your opinion on the article I linked to, and the earlier one about music? Seeing as these are new developments, doesn't that mean that Iran is headed in the wrong direction?

[Oliver]

I don't have any evidence that pixies aren't real either. But unlike pixies, Press TV actually has a searchable website of articles.

So what is your opinion on the article I linked to, and the earlier one about music? Seeing as these are new developments, doesn't that mean that Iran is headed in the wrong direction?


So? Why don't you search for dress codes?
http://www.presstv.ir/search.aspx?q=dress%20code

Now if you ask why they don't have the exact same report you pointed to, then it might have copyright reasons or maybe it isn't such a big issue over there.

But most probably it is for the same reasons why America doesn't post their articles as well: To put some make-up on their societies -aka- Propaganda on both sides.

I guess you agree on that using some logic.

[jsiv]

So? Why don't you search for dress codes?
http://www.presstv.ir/search.aspx?q=dress%20code

Now if you ask why they don't have the exact same report you pointed to, then it might have copyright reasons


Exact same report? There is nothing even remotely similar on there. Everything on there has a positive spin to it. The only article even touching on it was a single paragraph stating that the dress code is a blessing designed to protect women's rights. Not even you believe that, Oliver.


or maybe it isn't such a big issue over there.


Or maybe it is, and the government is suppressing any opposition. If it wasn't a "big issue," over half a million people wouldn't have been dealt with by the police in the first month of the summer.


But most probably it is for the same reasons why America doesn't post their articles as well: To put some make-up on their societies -aka- Propaganda on both sides.


I am not American.

This wasn't about America, and you are incorrect anyway. I am not American. Critical Articles are published in the US. I am not American.

Do I have to put "I am not American" in size 7 letters in my signature for you to get it?

Why do you keep comparing everything to the United States?

I am not American.


I guess you agree on that using some logic.


No, I don't agree. On any level.

Also, you didn't answer my question. The question is what your opinion on the content of the articles was, not their existence.

[Oliver]

Exact same report? There is nothing even remotely similar on there. Everything on there has a positive spin to it. The only article even touching on it was a single paragraph stating that the dress code is a blessing designed to protect women's rights. Not even you believe that, Oliver.

Or maybe it is, and the government is suppressing any opposition. If it wasn't a "big issue," over half a million people wouldn't have been dealt with by the police in the first month of the summer.

I am not American.

This wasn't about America, and you are incorrect anyway. I am not American. Critical Articles are published in the US. I am not American.

Do I have to put "I am not American" in size 7 letters in my signature for you to get it?

Why do you keep comparing everything to the United States?

I am not American.

No, I don't agree. On any level.

Also, you didn't answer my question. The question is what your opinion on the content of the articles was, not their existence.


Well, if you don't agree - and I explained it already:

Why are there no articles in Denmark or the US saying: "Israel is the problem"?

Answer: Propaganda.
See, you agree - don't you?

But I see your moral fallacy here:
"I don't like their moral standards - so I protest that they don't address my moral standard concerning dress codes".

Morality can be an evil thing, Jsiv. Literally.

And to answer your question since you didn't see it:
Propaganda (this is my opinion)

[gtc]

Why are there no articles in Denmark or the US saying: "Israel is the problem"?

Answer: Propaganda.
See, you agree - don't you?


There are many articles in the US which portray Israel in a negative light but to reduce the issue to 'Israel is the problem' is silly.

Do you really think that Israel is the problem?

Do you really think that articles which claimed that Israel is the problem would bring the Middle East closer to peace?

[jsiv]

Well, if you don't agree - and I explained it already:

Why are there no articles in Denmark or the US saying: "Israel is the problem"?

Answer: Propaganda.
See, you agree - don't you?


If the Denmark thing was directed at me, I think you've got it slightly wrong. I am in Norway.

But regardless, this argument makes no sense, as there are plenty of articles denouncing Israel both here and in the US.


But I see your moral fallacy here:
"I don't like their moral standards - so I protest that they don't address my moral standard concerning dress codes".

Morality can be an evil thing, Jsiv. Literally.


You're confused. I have no problem with people choosing to dress modestly, but last I checked there was no referendum held in Iran on the matter.

Also, the way you seem to say that our "moral standards" are just "different," and that neither is better than the other is outright appalling. There are certain things that should never be enforced by law, Oliver.

I care about personal freedoms, and those are especially important to the minorities in society (if you want to argue that the overwhelming majority of Iranians actually support criminalizing certain clothes, hair styles, music, etc., which I dispute.)


And to answer your question since you didn't see it:
Propaganda (this is my opinion)


You think the Iranian laws are "propaganda?" That doesn't really make sense. Or are you trying to say that the articles are lying and that none of this is really happening in Iran?

[Flo]

So? Why don't you search for dress codes?
http://www.presstv.ir/search.aspx?q=dress%20code

Now if you ask why they don't have the exact same report you pointed to, then it might have copyright reasons or maybe it isn't such a big issue over there.

But most probably it is for the same reasons why America doesn't post their articles as well: To put some make-up on their societies -aka- Propaganda on both sides.

I guess you agree on that using some logic.

You mean the logic that makes you find excuses for the iranian press but allows you to demonize the american press, despite evidence ?

Oliver, take your blinders off for a minute, and check what "America" does actually publish, in all its variety and number, and compare it to other sources. Then, and only then, will you be allowed to comment on the respective merits of the media !

[Oliver]

You mean the logic that makes you find excuses for the iranian press but allows you to demonize the american press, despite evidence ?

Oliver, take your blinders off for a minute, and check what "America" does actually publish, in all its variety and number, and compare it to other sources. Then, and only then, will you be allowed to comment on the respective merits of the media !


Oh really? :boggled:

"Standards and Practices"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_and_Practices

You are indeed very informed for someone who actually rants in very personal, verbal way - in contrast to my mostly civil, non-personal responses.

[Flo]

Did you actually read the link you've submitted ? It doesn't at all support your contention of "America" not dealing with certain issues because the govt censors its press, it deals with standards and practices inside networks (= self-censorship).

So it's back to take your blinders off for a minute, and check what "America" does actually publish, in all its variety and number, and compare it to other sources. Then, and only then, will you be allowed to comment on the respective merits of the media !

[Oliver]

Did you actually read the link you've submitted ? It doesn't at all support your contention of "America" not dealing with certain issues because the govt censors its press, it deals with standards and practices inside networks (= self-censorship).

So it's back to take your blinders off for a minute, and check what "America" does actually publish, in all its variety and number, and compare it to other sources. Then, and only then, will you be allowed to comment on the respective merits of the media !


Well, feel free to post your evidence that there are no Iranian Reports about Dress Codes because of censorship and not Self-Censorship since censor and censor have different meanings to you... :rolleyes:

[Flo]

I never mentionned dress code, kid, I'm talking press and media in general (and your link had nothing to do with dress code either, did you read it ?).

Another task for you: learn the difference between self-censorship and censorship.

[Oliver]

I never mentionned dress code, kid, I'm talking press and media in general (and your link had nothing to do with dress code either, did you read it ?).

Another task for you: learn the difference between self-censorship and censorship.


Huh? So why were you arguing on behalf Jsiv in the first place? Did you miss that we talked about dress-codes? :confused:


Another task for you: learn the difference between self-censorship and censorship.


First you have to point out what self-censor and censor have in common ........... you are right: Censor. :D

[Flo]

:confused:

Yes, I've noticed ...

First you have to point out what self-censor and censor have in common ........... you are right: Censor.

You know, you might have a bright future with the Iranian "free" press. The North Korean press would surely love your take on things, too. You should apply, I'm sure they'd love to hire someone who can't make that kind of subtle differences ...

[Darth Rotor]

How can I get if it is a joke or a racist comment on my Colombian friends??
If it was a joke, I did not get it, sorry..

That was not a racist joke. You need to learn what terms mean before you use them, and I think you are also being deliberately hostile. That is a curious reaction to me trying to post in a friendly and humorous manner. My aim is the reduce the tension between you and I, not increase it.

Not every interaction you and I have needs to be edged with hard feelings. Don't go out of your way to make them so. You only bring trouble to yourself.

DR

[Tailgater]

Oh really? :boggled:

"Standards and Practices"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_and_Practices



What does standard and practices have to do with the news media?

You're posting about a department in a private network that self edits its programming (usually family and children oriented) to avoid lawsuits or alot of phone calls. Sometimes, I seriously don't think you read what you link.

[Darth Rotor]

What does standard and practices have to do with the news media?

You're posting about a department in a private network that self edits its programming (usually family and children oriented) to avoid lawsuits or alot of phone calls. Sometimes, I seriously don't think you read what you link.
He may read, but grasping is another matter.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

That was not a racist joke. You need to learn what terms mean before you use them, and I think you are also being deliberately hostile. That is a curious reaction to me trying to post in a friendly and humorous manner. My aim is the reduce the tension between you and I, not increase it.

Not every interaction you and I have needs to be edged with hard feelings. Don't go out of your way to make them so. You only bring trouble to yourself.

DR

OK, OK..

[jsiv]

Iranian state TV covers the heavy metal scene. (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1537.htm)

[Pardalis]

Rock on!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646cc8778aad23.gif :g1:

[WildCat]

Iranian state TV covers the heavy metal scene. (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1537.htm)
That one band totally copied REO Speedwagon.

[marksman]

I totally didn't know Jews invented Satanism in England in the 18th century. Or that spiky hair means you dress like a homosexual.

Thank you, Iranian TV!

(By the way, why weren't any women interviewed on that piece? Are women not allowed to walk around malls in Iran? I thought that was the whole point of malls!)

[Matteo Martini]

Iranian state TV covers the heavy metal scene. (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1537.htm)

I notice all those clip come all from Memri TV

[gtc]

I notice all those clip come all from Memri TV

Memri TV records the shows from Iranian TV stations, they put their logo on the clips to show that they recorded the show.

[Matteo Martini]

Memri TV records the shows from Iranian TV stations, they put their logo on the clips to show that they recorded the show.

Thanks
Wonder why they have not been arrested/killed/exiled/tortured so far, probably as they are based in Washington..

[Oliver]

Thanks
Wonder why they have not been arrested/killed/exiled/tortured so far, probably as they are based in Washington..


Hello Matteo, :)

I know this isn't exactly on topic and you asked me where I got all the videos from:
Do you know the BBC-Series "The Power of Nightmares (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm)"?
I guess this will be very, very interesting for you according to the Issues you're interested in:

Part1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177&hl=en

Part2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876&hl=en

Part3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&hl=en

[/derail]

[Matteo Martini]

Hello Matteo, :)

I know this isn't exactly on topic and you asked me where I got all the videos from:
Do you know the BBC-Series "The Power of Nightmares (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm)"?
I guess this will be very, very interesting for you according to the Issues you're interested in:

Part1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177&hl=en

Part2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876&hl=en

Part3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&hl=en

[/derail]

Tried to, but each video is about 1 hour long.
I will watch them later.

[Oliver]

PRESS TV addresses latest evolvements regarding the Nuclear Issue:

Iran FM: Bushehr plant nuclear fuel ready
Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:54:30

Source: Press TV Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki says nuclear fuel of Bushehr power plant is ready, waiting for the IAEA's investigator to remove the seals.

"Most part of the negotiations with Kiriyenko, Head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, was about Iran's nuclear issues and particularly Bushehr's nuclear power plant," said Manouchehr Mottaki.

The minister expressed hope that Iran receives the fuel soon.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=23307&sectionid=351020104

[Pardalis]

The "Bushehr" power plant? :id:

:faint:

BTW thanks for not creating another thread about it Oliver, I think you're getting the hang of it. ;)

[Oliver]

The "Bushehr" power plant? :id:

:faint:

BTW thanks for not creating another thread about it Oliver, I think you're getting the hang of it. ;)


What other thread? This one is about "IranTV" - and the report
about the latest "nuclear news" came from them as well....

[Tailgater]

While you were there, did you vote if 911 was an inside job?

[Oliver]

While you were there, did you vote if 911 was an inside job?


Yes - I vote this way every time I visit the site - just for the fun of it ... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110746c18bcf65dc8.gif

[Pardalis]

What other thread?

I said thanks for not creating another thread.

Yes - I vote this way every time I visit the site - just for the fun of it ...

9/11 is not fun.

[marksman]

Apparently, some Germans have a morbid sense of humor.

[Oliver]

Apparently, some Germans have a morbid sense of humor.


You call a IranTV 9/11 poll morbid? ... Drama Queen much? :confused:
Maybe you don't know what morbid means:

o9EbssUgHj4

[Pardalis]

I wasn't sure either to post this in the conspiracy theory forum or here:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=23511&sectionid=3510303
The massacre of Iraqi civilians through suicide and car bomb attacks and other terrorist tactics is committed by organized criminal gangs which act under the command of Iraq's National Intelligence Service with links to the CIA. The operatives are intelligence agents of the former Baath regime. So the CIA is working against Bush? :boggled:

ETA: and again, now from Iran's Foreign minister spokesman:

The terrorists, currently based in Iraq, are endangering the security of Turkey and Iran. They have used the presence of occupiers in Iraq as an excuse for their existence. The occupiers and these groups have held meetings in which the terrorists have been supported by the United States to continue terrorizing the region.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=23036&sectionid=3510302 Wow, that PressTV is a gold mine of denialism.

They are not even making any sense now: according to them the US is helping their very own enemies in Iraq, helping to ruin their very own efforts... The US and the insurgency are in cahoots, wow, who would have known? :boggled:

[marksman]

You call a IranTV 9/11 poll morbid?
No I call pretending to be a Truther "for the fun of it" morbid. If you're not pretending, then it's moribund.

[Oliver]

No I call pretending to be a Truther "for the fun of it" morbid. If you're not pretending, then it's moribund.


It's a stupid internet poll - and to be fair: Since the most
interesting Saudi connection is classified within the 9/11
commission report, I don't know for sure if the US Gubmint
had connections to the people who sponsored the Attacks.

According to former Senator Graham, they had:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham/

So accurately, no matter what your choice is in the poll,
both answers are fair anyway... :)

[a_unique_person]

Here's a better idea...

Learn to speak Farsi. That way, you can actually hear what the Iranian leadership is telling its own people, rather than just what they want you to hear. (There is a tendency for some leaders in that part of the world to say "we want peace" in English to the western world, and "we want the U.S. destroyed" in their own language.

You know, I'm always amazed at the lengths that some people will go to to justify their support of Iran. How can ANYONE draw any sort of realistic comparison between the press freedom from Iran and the press freedom in the U.S.? According to "Reporters sans frontiers", The U.S. regularly sits in the top third of the countries in the world in terms of press freedom. Iran consistently places itself near the bottom of the list.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

When you try to equate the type of news produced by Iran with the type of news produced in the U.S., not only do you give a distorted view by giving more credibility to Iranian sources than it deserves, but you also do a discredit to the many journalists in the U.S. that do work to provide unbiased reports.

Oh, and here is something to consider:
- The majority of newspapers in the last election endorsed Kerry, not Bush
Not exactly the actions of a journalistic community that produces pro-Bush news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presid ential_election,_2004

The biggest surprise hit in Iran? A TV show about an Iranian in WWII helping Jews escape the Holocaust by offering them Iranian visas.

[marksman]

I don't know for sure if the US Gubmint
had connections to the people who sponsored the Attacks.
This theory needs to be set forth in the Conspiracy Forum so it can be appropriately mocked.

[Oliver]

The biggest surprise hit in Iran? A TV show about an Iranian in WWII helping Jews escape the Holocaust by offering them Iranian visas.


Paris, 194X: Iranian officials offer 500 visas to pursued Jews:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070916/entertainment/iran_holocaust_show

Abdol-Hossein Sardari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdol-Hossein_Sardari) - Head of Consular affairs at the Iranian Embassy in Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris). He saved many Iranian Jews and gave 500 blank Iranian passports to an acquaintance of his to be used by non-Iranian Jews in France.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holoca ust



__________________________________________________ _____________________________________


This theory needs to be set forth in the Conspiracy Forum so it can be appropriately mocked.


Wrong. Get your facts straight:

"The Bush Administration had refused to place Saudi several charities and individuals on the terror watch list. The senators asked the U.S. government to release the names of Saudi charities and individuals who were being investigated for funding Al-Qaeda.

By the next day, the names were classified by the Bush Adminstration and could not be made public. "

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html


"The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee tells Salon that the White House has suppressed convincing evidence that the Saudi royal family supported at least two of the hijackers.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification."

Source: http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/001265.php

[marksman]

It still needs to go on the Conspiracy forum if your conclusion from this is, as you stated, the Bush Administration had a direct connection to the 9/11 hijackers.

[jsiv]

What will next week's poll be? "Did the Holocaust really happen?"

Don't worry, Oliver, I'll vote on behalf of you so you won't be breaking any laws.


Heeh. (http://www.thelocal.se/blog/20070907/203/)

[Oliver]

What will next week's poll be? "Did the Holocaust really happen?


Mhmm - that's a good question. Maybe I should watch Iranian
Television more often to find out the answer: :rolleyes:


Iranian TV series show the plight of Jews during Second World War (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070916/entertainment/iran_holocaust_show_1)CP Sun Sep 16, 3:21 PM

[Oliver]

Tried to, but each video is about 1 hour long.
I will watch them later.


Hi Matteo, :)

did you have the time to watch the BBC-Series? And if so - what do you think?

[Matteo Martini]

Hi Matteo, :)

did you have the time to watch the BBC-Series? And if so - what do you think?

Sorry, no.
Too long..

[Oliver]

Sorry, no.
Too long..


Well, maybe you find some time to review one part of the series,
it's worth the time - even if some outlandish sounding claims willl
probably shock you. :boxedin:

[jsiv]

Mhmm - that's a good question. Maybe I should watch Iranian
Television more often to find out the answer: :rolleyes:
Iranian TV series show the plight of Jews during Second World War (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070916/entertainment/iran_holocaust_show_1) CP Sun Sep 16, 3:21 PM


Unfortunately, even if the show is what you claim it is, it's still outnumbered by productions like this one. (http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1424.htm)


Also, I don't think this new TV show (http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1556.htm) is as great as you think, and infact it seems to imply that the real plight of the Jews were the Zionists.

By means of this series, the Iranians hope to dispel allegations that they deny the persecution of the Jews during World War II and hope to discard their image as Holocaust deniers. The series was presented as an historical drama which aims to depict the suffering of the Jews during World War II, and which is even aimed at educating the Jews about their history. In several newspapers, it is stated that the series sheds light on the way the Jews fled several countries, thus becoming refugees.

At the same time, the series presents the "Zionist lie": The Jewish state is a Zionist invention, the result of collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis in an effort to coerce Jews to emigrate to Palestine


Seems to me like a major part of the plot is about how the Zionists conspired to force the Jews out of various countries and into Israel, rather than Nazi injustices and the Holocaust -- even going as far as claiming the Zionists worked with the Nazis.

Why does everything they make always need to have an Anti-Israel spin, Oliver?

[Oliver]

Why does everything they make always need to have an Anti-Israel spin, Oliver?


Why does every US-discussion about France always need to have
Anti-French spins? - Or every discussion about Iran's nuclear reactor
a Terrorism spin ... Quite frankly - I don't know.

Stupidity and propaganda, I guess.

[jsiv]

[Irrelevant rantings]

... Quite frankly - I don't know.

Stupidity and propaganda, I guess.


Or because today's Iran considers Israel to be the bane of its existence and wants the country gone.

[Oliver]

Or because today's Iran considers Israel to be the bane of its existence and wants the country gone.


Nice speculation - but wrong forum. :p

And I could say the same thing about using the word
terrorism in discussions or reports about Iran's nuclear
weapons - as a pretext for military actions by persuading
the public with propaganda.

And in contrast to your statement - it wouldn't even be
speculation. ;)

[jsiv]

Nice speculation - but wrong forum. :p


Please explain. Wrong forum?

Are you saying that Iran doesn't want Israel gone, and hasn't publically expressed that wish ad nauseum?

Are you saying that Iran's dream isn't to rid the Middle East of evil western influence (which includes Israel) and emerge as the local political and military leader?


And I could say the same thing about using the word terrorism in discussions or reports about Iran's nuclear weapons - as a pretext for military actions by persuading the public with propaganda.


You must be confusing me with someone else, because I've never said anything like that.

[a_unique_person]

Please explain. Wrong forum?

Are you saying that Iran doesn't want Israel gone, and hasn't publically expressed that wish ad nauseum?

Are you saying that Iran's dream isn't to rid the Middle East of evil western influence (which includes Israel) and emerge as the local political and military leader?





You must be confusing me with someone else, because I've never said anything like that.

Iranian leaders who do not have popular support might, but not the majority of Iranians.

[a_unique_person]

Unfortunately, even if the show is what you claim it is, it's still outnumbered by productions like this one. (http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1424.htm)


Also, I don't think this new TV show (http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1556.htm) is as great as you think, and infact it seems to imply that the real plight of the Jews were the Zionists.




Seems to me like a major part of the plot is about how the Zionists conspired to force the Jews out of various countries and into Israel, rather than Nazi injustices and the Holocaust -- even going as far as claiming the Zionists worked with the Nazis.

Why does everything they make always need to have an Anti-Israel spin, Oliver?

There is no end of allegations against some Palestinians who appealed to the Nazis for help during WWII, when they were betrayed by the British.

It appears the the same was true for some Zionist extremists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group))

However, if the program is claiming it was true for all Zionists, I don't believe it. It appears to be generalising from one small group to all Zionists.

[jsiv]

Iranian leaders who do not have popular support might, but not the majority of Iranians.


I'm really only talking about what the leaders seem to represent, not the Iranian people.


There is no end of allegations against some Palestinians who appealed to the Nazis for help during WWII, when they were betrayed by the British.

It appears the the same was true for some Zionist extremists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group))

However, if the program is claiming it was true for all Zionists, I don't believe it. It appears to be generalising from one small group to all Zionists.


Well yes, there's always someone that finds a way to take advantage of any situation. Help save lots of fellow Jews from potentially being killed, while at the same time fulfilling your dream of your own nation... If that was their logic, I'm sure it could be tempting.

My point was really that the show seems to portray Jews as an innocent and abused people, while the State of Israel is evil, illegitimate, and needs to be removed. This seems to be a recurring theme in everything that comes out of Iran. They can never say something nice without also taking a shot at Israel. This also fits well with the various anti-Israel speeches and statements we've all heard.

For some reason Oliver doesn't seem to want to accept this, and seems to be in denial over what Iran's leaders want.

Note that at no point have I said that Iran appears to be planning a direct military attack on Israel (although there are indications that they support terrorist groups that fight Israel), only that they have a desire to see the country gone. His rhetoric clearly tries to convince us that this would be best for us all, and that we should all work together to disband Israel and relocate the Jews elsewhere (maybe even somewhere in the region, under muslim rule) and make up for the injustices of the last 60 years.

[a_unique_person]

Given that Amadinehjad is very unpopular, I'm guessing the majority of Iranians don't want

a) War
b) for Iran to be seen as spreading hate.

[NoZed Avenger]

Given that Amadinehjad is very unpopular, I'm guessing the majority of Iranians don't want

a) War
b) for Iran to be seen as spreading hate.

I'm guessing the majority of Iranians didn't want oppression of views, jailing of dissidents, or Amadinehjad in a position of power in the first place.

But they still got those, too.

Theirs views on the matter are only important if their views are the ones that control policy. To date, they do not.

[a_unique_person]

I'm guessing the majority of Iranians didn't want oppression of views, jailing of dissidents, or Amadinehjad in a position of power in the first place.

But they still got those, too.

Theirs views on the matter are only important if their views are the ones that control policy. To date, they do not.

It's important in how you respond to the problem of the fundy's who have create a constitution that entrenches their power, and Amadinejad, who was elected on the basis that there was almost no-one else to elect. If you respond wrong, you get Iraq.

[NoZed Avenger]

It's important in how you respond to the problem of the fundy's who have create a constitution that entrenches their power, and Amadinejad, who was elected on the basis that there was almost no-one else to elect. If you respond wrong, you get Iraq.


It is quite possible that no matter how you respond, you get Iraq.
Or that if you respond wrong, you get something much worse than Iraq.
Or that even if you respond "right," the results will be as bad as or worse than the current situation in Iraq.

[Oliver]

PressTV is also covering Iran's presidents visit in the US:

Pres: Iran will never recognize Israel (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24440&sectionid=351020101)

[WildCat]

Bump!

Virus posted this in another thread, I thought it was appropriate here. John Sweeney of the BBC World Service did a show called "Useful Idiots", and Chapter 3 was about PressTV and the Brits who report for PressTV. Oddly enough, this is probaby the first interview George Galloway ever declined! :p

F-if27a-yGo

[Thunder]

Luke Rudekowski works for Press TV.
Nuff' said.

[Lamafarmer]

Works, or ist just an attention whore who gets airtime?

[Pardalis]

Luke Rudekowski works for Press TV.
Nuff' said.

No way!

The guy who keeps fearmongering about the "police state" is working for a police state?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Luke Rudekowski works for Press TV.
Nuff' said.Works, or ist just an attention whore who gets airtime?

He gets a lot of airtime on "Russia Today" too.

[Thunder]

He gets a lot of airtime on "Russia Today" too.

****, my bad. i meant Russia Today.

same differene though. its all propaganda from an America-hating government.

[Skeptic]

No way!

The guy who keeps fearmongering about the "police state" is working for a police state?

Makes his criticism an expert's opinion, I suppose -- as Churchill said to Roosevelt in a telegram when Hitler claimed the bombing of Rome by the allies was a "war crime".

[Undesired Walrus]

I've heard that Press TV is filmed in Ealing, London, the town where I grew up!

[Thunder]

I've heard that Press TV is filmed in Ealing, London, the town where I grew up!

sounds like a CT to me