BF2S Forums Do you think that US Soldiers like killing people, seriously?

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

this debate with you cant be won then, because its not a debate.

That's odd, because Bubbalo and I seem to make some good points to each other. If that's not debating, it must be idle chit chat. Or both.

Last edited by mKmalfunction (2006-06-14 05:55:34)

I know, but what I'm saying is that if they stop attacking civilians their chances drop drastically.

Neway, I'm off to bed, be back tomorrow (hopefull at school, think I've found a way past the firewall ).  Cya.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

I think the poll should have been, "Do extremist Muslims Enjoy Killing people" Then it would be a good poll. Our soldiers Kill during war, and while Fighting for people who dont have the means to fight for themselves.

The muslim extremists are at war, so far as they're concerned.  As far as fighting for people who don't have the means to fight for themselves goes, I fell I should refer you to Iran, where the US supported an unpopular Totalitarian regime, and Vietnam, where the US could have had public support if the fuckwits in charge hadn't propped up a corrupt government.  But then, you'll probably just explain those away, along with any other examples I bring.  After all, America can do no wrong

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

The extremists Kill for the sake of killing and the warped belief in a religon that is suppose to be peaceful.

Here's a hint: get at least a basic understanding of their grievances before you start saying why they kill.  Historically, the earliest muslim terrorist groups were made in the Palestinian refugee camps.  Al Qaeda was funded and trained by America to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, then turned to the US when the USSR collapsed.  Perhaps that tells you something about how America appears to the Middle East.

mKmalfunction wrote:

Last I checked, that hadn't been proven yet. And if it did happen, they had an equal chance of being killed by the Insurgence.

It's pretty obvious that they were.  The remaining question is in what manner they were killed, and what, if anything, the soldiers did wrong.  Besides, call me crazy, but I think if the public has an equal chance of being killed by the insurgents and their "defenders", something's going wrong.

The way I look at it is, shit happens. Civilian casualities are never a good thing, but it happens in war. Look at what we did to Dresdin in WWII. A cultural center bombed during a parade.

It's funny how people can defend those fuckers over there, when the same ones they defend are more than willing to remove their head for 'em.

IDIOT, They have NO reguard for WHO they are killing. I think YOU need to understand. They target ANYONE no matter race or religon. Get a clue before giving me Neg Karma Shithead.  I wont Give ya neg karma like you did me, because i feel sorry for you.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

I think the poll should have been, "Do extremist Muslims Enjoy Killing people" Then it would be a good poll. Our soldiers Kill during war, and while Fighting for people who dont have the means to fight for themselves.

The muslim extremists are at war, so far as they're concerned.  As far as fighting for people who don't have the means to fight for themselves goes, I fell I should refer you to Iran, where the US supported an unpopular Totalitarian regime, and Vietnam, where the US could have had public support if the fuckwits in charge hadn't propped up a corrupt government.  But then, you'll probably just explain those away, along with any other examples I bring.  After all, America can do no wrong

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

The extremists Kill for the sake of killing and the warped belief in a religon that is suppose to be peaceful.

Here's a hint: get at least a basic understanding of their grievances before you start saying why they kill.  Historically, the earliest muslim terrorist groups were made in the Palestinian refugee camps.  Al Qaeda was funded and trained by America to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, then turned to the US when the USSR collapsed.  Perhaps that tells you something about how America appears to the Middle East.


It's pretty obvious that they were.  The remaining question is in what manner they were killed, and what, if anything, the soldiers did wrong.  Besides, call me crazy, but I think if the public has an equal chance of being killed by the insurgents and their "defenders", something's going wrong.

The way I look at it is, shit happens. Civilian casualities are never a good thing, but it happens in war. Look at what we did to Dresdin in WWII. A cultural center bombed during a parade.

It's funny how people can defend those fuckers over there, when the same ones they defend are more than willing to remove their head for 'em.

IDIOT, They have NO reguard for WHO they are killing. I think YOU need to understand. They target ANYONE no matter race or religon. Get a clue before giving me Neg Karma Shithead.  I wont Give ya neg karma like you did me, because i feel sorry for you.

I didn't -1 you. But feel free to -1 me. Forum karma is useless.

Bubbalo wrote:

You mean there?

Regardless, my point is that as a US soldier, he only sees it from a US soldiers point of view.  Newsflash for you, btw, where do you think the media get their reports?  Do you think they just magically appear out of thin air?  No, they are made by reporters.  Reporters that are, y'know, in Iraq.  I think that the attempt to cover up Haditha tells us a lot about the typical US military view.

Another news flash....Soldiers don't care about ratings and as such have no bias. and thanks for correcting my grammar.

Not to mention that those reporters are there in hopes of something, anything will happen that will be news worthy.

Last edited by lowing (2006-06-14 15:53:29)

No we dont Like to hear about gunfights, But rest assured you wont hear any possative news out of Iraq unless you can find an unbias or non left reporter. I have MANY letters from Friends serving there that are possative and Show Why we need to be there and why we needed to go there. When it comes straight from the horses mouth, its kind of hard to ignore the facts that the news WONT report.

There's plenty of right bias news in Aus, and yet I don't get that much good news.

One day when I'm 18 i'll do my duty for my country ( Sweden )... And i'll do it gladly. You have to fight for what you hold on to in this world. There are to many people just sitting in their homes and says: "If there are no soldiers, there will be no war..." . But they are wrong. Conflicts are a part of humanity, there are some fine exampels in your home: How many times don't you fight with your brother / sister?? It's the same thing in the "real" world. Big brother U.S fights with their little brother Iraq... Why: Because the U.S finds Iraq as an enemy, just as you can see your brother / sister as an enemy for your candy .   So: there will always be wars, and hopefully soldiers to fight them. If there are no soldiers it will be the, so called "civilians", who will have to fight the war, because it will always be there (war)...

There are two ways of dig: You can die, trying to make a diffenrence, or you can die just watching... I'd chose the first alternative, Would you?

PS. You'll have to excuse my, not perfect, english. I'm 14 years old and Swede so...   And one more thing: Sweden will beat England in the worldcup

Horseman 77 wrote:

As for all the " Right Bias " in the News , there is an entire post on this. and no one was able to name another staion that isn't Left save for Fox News. Not that they are " Right leaning" they just don't lean left.

It's all relative to the observer, Horseman.  You may well believe Fox is the only unbiased news source, but you can't say "no one [is] able to name another station that isn't Left" and think this is somehow an objective fact.  The only thing it reflects is your ability or willingness to acknowledge the existence of views that don't match your own.

From my perspective, all mainstream news organizations lean right to varying degrees, and mostly pretty heavily.  This is just my view, but it is based on some objective observations:

1. They are privately owned businesses and therefore competing with each other.
2. A business must maximize profits to provide value to their shareholders or it will perish.
3. The overwhelming bulk of their revenue comes from advertising, the point of which is normally to increase sales for the advertiser, usually also a privately owned business (see 2).

So basically, I don't see that any of this has much to do with "people's right to know", "informed decisions", or individual citizens in general.  None of that stuff has any real relevance to the editorial policy of a mainstream news organization.  What matters is the bottom line, and that means attracting the most advertising revenue.

When was the last time you had to decide which networks you wanted to advertise on?  Or which you wanted to punish for pushing "unfriendly" editorial content?

Enjoy Democracy™.

spastic bullet wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

As for all the " Right Bias " in the News , there is an entire post on this. and no one was able to name another staion that isn't Left save for Fox News. Not that they are " Right leaning" they just don't lean left.

It's all relative to the observer, Horseman.  You may well believe Fox is the only unbiased news source, but you can't say "no one [is] able to name another station that isn't Left" and think this is somehow an objective fact.  The only thing it reflects is your ability or willingness to acknowledge the existence of views that don't match your own.

From my perspective, all mainstream news organizations lean right to varying degrees, and mostly pretty heavily.  This is just my view, but it is based on some objective observations:

1. They are privately owned businesses and therefore competing with each other.
2. A business must maximize profits to provide value to their shareholders or it will perish.
3. The overwhelming bulk of their revenue comes from advertising, the point of which is normally to increase sales for the advertiser, usually also a privately owned business (see 2).

So basically, I don't see that any of this has much to do with "people's right to know", "informed decisions", or individual citizens in general.  None of that stuff has any real relevance to the editorial policy of a mainstream news organization.  What matters is the bottom line, and that means attracting the most advertising revenue.

When was the last time you had to decide which networks you wanted to advertise on?  Or which you wanted to punish for pushing "unfriendly" editorial content?

Enjoy Democracy™.

Spastic Bullet - I don't think anyone who is still possessed of their senses could ever describe the odious neo-con voicepiece 'FOX News' as unbiased. Scary channel. It is THE US-Israel-Big Money propaganda machine. I trust Horseman knows that it is biased too.

PS I'm not trying to say there are not equally biased liberal news channels.

kr@cker wrote:

as i have stated before they take their journalistic credibility very seriously and on their NEWS SHOWS they try to paint an even handed picture of world events, everyone keeps focusing on their EDITORIAL SHOWS and yelling "BIASED!", and even then the shows balance their speakers viewpoints, the best reason i can see that they "lean right" is that they are in the middle of the road and all their critics and competition are to their left

I would disagree to a certain extent with that. If you compare their website to other news websites when a story breaks you will find that a story that doesn't reflect well on the right or on the war in Iraq is tucked away in a hard to find place and played down considerably whereas elsewhere it is reported like any other story.
Also the 'balance' they provide is unbelievably weak when it comes to representing anti-neo-con views. They also subliminally report things in their ticker with a bias, in particular with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Other biases they have introduced is the use of the term 'homicide bomber' as opposed to 'suicide bomber'. There are many examples but it is all very subtly done - right down to the now-meaningless subliminal 'TERROR ALERT: ELEVATED' warning that flashes along the ticker every two minutes to remind Americans of how much 'danger' they are in (lol).

Personallly I think editorials and opinion section should either not be allowed or should be heavily regulated on any news channel (whether left leaning or right leaning). It's propaganda pure and simple. And the 'mindless masses' are very susceptible to subliminal bombardment with ideas and concepts. How do you think that crazy loner Hitler managed to dupe so many people. That's obviously a ridiculously extreme example but subliminal messages and constant bombardment with one mans vision led to a once-great nation's destruction. IN GENERAL, the only people who take a critical view of news stories they hear or read are the middle and upper classes - the masses are wide open for brainwashing by those with the money to promote their ideals through the media. This is very dangerous indeed.

PS ON the balance issue - I hardly think cutting someons microphone when they say something disagreeable is very balanced...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-17 18:26:44)

kr@cker wrote:

as i have stated before they take their journalistic credibility very seriously and on their NEWS SHOWS they try to paint an even handed picture of world events, everyone keeps focusing on their EDITORIAL SHOWS and yelling "BIASED!", and even then the shows balance their speakers viewpoints, the best reason i can see that they "lean right" is that they are in the middle of the road and all their critics and competition are to their left

kr@cker, there are two separate issues here.  The first is that editorial policy doesn't just pertain to "EDITORIAL SHOWS" -- it also determines (1) what stories end up airing on the "NEWS SHOWS" at all, (2) how much time each story gets, (3) which sides of the story get any mention at all, (4) how each side is presented/edited, and so on...  There are only so many hours in a news day and 6bn people on the planet -- all "news" is editorial.

The second issue is whether explicitly labelling something "EDITORIAL" removes the need for any journalistic credibility.  Sure, it's good to know that it's just Bill O'Reilly's opinion that Bush sees the Gitmo detainees as POWs, but it's still 100% fact-free.  I don't know if this makes him a liar or just an idiot, but it's clear that some people watching will take his word for it.  How does this not hurt FOX's credibility, except in the event that viewers don't find out it's not true?

Lastly, if "all their critics and competition are to their left" but "they are in the middle of the road", that's a lot of road just going to waste.