Shootings in Paris

[west didsblue]

The real story was that Iraqis were accused of taking between 15 and 22 incubators which was later found to have been fabricated. This shows that one story can be exaggerated by conspiracy nuts who all quote each other to add authenticity to their claims.

Thanks for proving my point.

The 312 figure is from John MacArthur, author of The Second Front (on media manipulation, you wouldn't like it) I'm aware she said 22 babies in her testimony, relating to babies in incubators.

Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean sod all, are you denying it happened?. And it was staged?. And it wasn't used to garner support for the war?.

Here's a link to the faked testimony but it's taken from YouTube (not sure if that meets your idea of trustworthy media sources). There is also various others on YouTube, one has Daddy Bush quoting the faked testimony verbatim.

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y</a>

Conspiracy nuts!, why because some question what they're drip fed by mainstream media. They're to be trusted aren't they?. Is this the same mainstream media who engaged in illegal phone hacking, even sick enough to hack Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered. Or the same mainstream media who refused to out Saville (BBC employee they're main aren't they?) whilst he was alive. Hillsborough coverage etc. the list against the mainstream media is endless.

Do you only get your information from mainstream media?.

Most of mainstream media is owned by a small number of people. Rupert Murdoch for example owns and controls shit loads of mainstream media here and in the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. (Google what he owns but you already know). That's one person in control of all that mainstream media. You just have to look at his tweet this week (and the ensuing ridicule he received as a result) to see what his angle is. Also worth pointing out one of his mainstream media outlets was responsible for the shameful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. Oh and one of his other mainstream media outlets was responsible for hacking Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered.

Just because things aren't reported on the controlled mainstream media doesn't mean it's not going on or hasn't happened. Following City in the mainstream media should tell you this. If you don't believe me you should visit the "Agenda Thread".

The mainstream media reported the proper story about the fabricated testimony about 22 incubators. The conspiracy nuts latched on to the exaggerated 312 figure which you used in your example.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Same war, different bullshit.

It shows how they try to mislead and manipulate through the media. Obviously this was from 1990, they've had much more practice at making it more believable since then.

Without CNN broadcasts like this and the faked "Iraqi soldiers taking incubators and leaving babies on the cold floor to die" testimony maybe the American people may have not had much appetite for going to war, in turn the UK and 35 more coalition forces may never have participated.

This is from the nation that gave the world Hollywood. It gets interesting from 4:30 onwards.

http://youtu.be/jTWY14eyMFg

Charles Jaco was the CNN reporter famous for covering the 1990 Persian Gulf War.

The first part of this video shows the stage set he was on, and he was clowning around with fellow CNN staff. The Saudi Arabian "hotel" in the background were fake palm trees and a blue wall in a studio. This clip was leaked by CNN staff.

The second part of this video was a live CNN satellite feed recorded onto VHS showing the final cut. Charles Jaco was wearing a different jacket, but he had the same act. The acting was terrible as Charles Jaco wore a gas mask, and his fellow correspondent Carl Rochelle wore a helmet during a supposed gas/chemical bomb attack. The sirens and missile sound effects are part of the stage set. The camera never pans out or shows the sky.

Fear is a worst kind of slavery and a tool used by these war mongers brilliantly
May be when muslims say isis,al qaeda dont represent islam,may be its time to give their opinion some light

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYXXcwuJtbQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYXXcwuJtbQ</a>

Bravo!

This is why I won't be bullied by the threat of reprisal into holding my tongue about religious mumbo jumbo.

 

[Anonymous]

The real story was that Iraqis were accused of taking between 15 and 22 incubators which was later found to have been fabricated. This shows that one story can be exaggerated by conspiracy nuts who all quote each other to add authenticity to their claims.

Thanks for proving my point.

The 312 figure is from John MacArthur, author of The Second Front (on media manipulation, you wouldn't like it) I'm aware she said 22 babies in her testimony, relating to babies in incubators.

Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean sod all, are you denying it happened?. And it was staged?. And it wasn't used to garner support for the war?.

Here's a link to the faked testimony but it's taken from YouTube (not sure if that meets your idea of trustworthy media sources). There is also various others on YouTube, one has Daddy Bush quoting the faked testimony verbatim.

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y</a>

Conspiracy nuts!, why because some question what they're drip fed by mainstream media. They're to be trusted aren't they?. Is this the same mainstream media who engaged in illegal phone hacking, even sick enough to hack Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered. Or the same mainstream media who refused to out Saville (BBC employee they're main aren't they?) whilst he was alive. Hillsborough coverage etc. the list against the mainstream media is endless.

Do you only get your information from mainstream media?.

Most of mainstream media is owned by a small number of people. Rupert Murdoch for example owns and controls shit loads of mainstream media here and in the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. (Google what he owns but you already know). That's one person in control of all that mainstream media. You just have to look at his tweet this week (and the ensuing ridicule he received as a result) to see what his angle is. Also worth pointing out one of his mainstream media outlets was responsible for the shameful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. Oh and one of his other mainstream media outlets was responsible for hacking Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered.

Just because things aren't reported on the controlled mainstream media doesn't mean it's not going on or hasn't happened. Following City in the mainstream media should tell you this. If you don't believe me you should visit the "Agenda Thread".

The mainstream media reported the proper story about the fabricated testimony about 22 incubators. The conspiracy nuts latched on to the exaggerated 312 figure which you used in your example.

You didn't answer my questions. I told you where the 312 number came from (a book, can we not take information from a book now?).

Whether or not the number was exaggerated is by the by. THEY STILL MADE UP A STORY TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING WAR WAS JUSTIFIABLE AND USED THE KUWAITI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.' DAUGHTER TO PRETEND SHE WAS A NURSE WHO WITNESSED THE EVENTS. You've admitted that. That was my point.

Once the story breaks of course mainstream media are going to have to report it, otherwise they would look silly if it's out there but not picked up by the mainstream media. Besides they were already killing innocent Iraqis by then so it had served it's purpose. Obviously many things are kept out of the mainstream media. It is controlled by the few, this is why all mainstream media generally report the same stories as one another. BBC news reports the same as C4, ITV, SKY, C5, CNN, FOX etc. they're given a script on what to report and how to report it, that's why all of the programmes/stories reported are the same as they are on other non related news sources. Watch the news tonight on different channels, you will struggle to see much difference between two news bulletins who are supposed to be from 2 broadcasting companies who are supposed to be independent of each other. They all get their script from a central source.

You've obviously taken my point on Rupert Murdoch as your silence is deafening on my point raised about him as an example of one mans power within media world wide. There are others just like him but you know that don't you?.

Can you please provide with with a list of trustworthy mainstream media sources.

Did you watch the CNN video I posted last night?, would CNN be on your list of trustworthy mainstream media sources?.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

There are couple of things here first of all the only opinion that matters in this world is of Amricans ,Britts protest of iraq invasion is said to be the biggest anti war protest in the west,but no fu*** were given and iraq got invaded ,and who are Americans opinion makers ?the likes of Cnn and foxs(who i think made the fuk up of the century when it comes down to media ).Please do read about physiology and how mind control works and if you still cant get it after the lies of weapons of mass destruction in iraq may be you never will.

Second point is political polarization (what it means is when views get so extreme that you arent prepared to listen to the other person view, since 9/11 media in west have been bashing islam and muslims and to add to that the attrocities of Isis ,al qaeda who happen to kill 8 time more muslims than the non muslims add perfect fuel to fire , so whenever we have such a thread on some terrorist act ,you will see comments like religion of peace etc and even on fb ,go to any news channel page andf there is any article like that, you will see comments which will be top rated will usually be the ones who are bashing islam and whoever says Terrorism is not islam and dont judge all of muslims on islam will be called Muslim Applogetic,etc etc
In political polarization when our views are not entertained we start bashing the other person views without even taking the facs into account

 

[malg]

 

[west didsblue]

Thanks for proving my point.

The 312 figure is from John MacArthur, author of The Second Front (on media manipulation, you wouldn't like it) I'm aware she said 22 babies in her testimony, relating to babies in incubators.

Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean sod all, are you denying it happened?. And it was staged?. And it wasn't used to garner support for the war?.

Here's a link to the faked testimony but it's taken from YouTube (not sure if that meets your idea of trustworthy media sources). There is also various others on YouTube, one has Daddy Bush quoting the faked testimony verbatim.

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y</a>

Conspiracy nuts!, why because some question what they're drip fed by mainstream media. They're to be trusted aren't they?. Is this the same mainstream media who engaged in illegal phone hacking, even sick enough to hack Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered. Or the same mainstream media who refused to out Saville (BBC employee they're main aren't they?) whilst he was alive. Hillsborough coverage etc. the list against the mainstream media is endless.

Do you only get your information from mainstream media?.

Most of mainstream media is owned by a small number of people. Rupert Murdoch for example owns and controls shit loads of mainstream media here and in the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. (Google what he owns but you already know). That's one person in control of all that mainstream media. You just have to look at his tweet this week (and the ensuing ridicule he received as a result) to see what his angle is. Also worth pointing out one of his mainstream media outlets was responsible for the shameful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. Oh and one of his other mainstream media outlets was responsible for hacking Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered.

Just because things aren't reported on the controlled mainstream media doesn't mean it's not going on or hasn't happened. Following City in the mainstream media should tell you this. If you don't believe me you should visit the "Agenda Thread".

The mainstream media reported the proper story about the fabricated testimony about 22 incubators. The conspiracy nuts latched on to the exaggerated 312 figure which you used in your example.

You didn't answer my questions. I told you where the 312 number came from (a book, can we not take information from a book now?).

Whether or not the number was exaggerated is by the by. THEY STILL MADE UP A STORY TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING WAR WAS JUSTIFIABLE AND USED THE KUWAITI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.' DAUGHTER TO PRETEND SHE WAS A NURSE WHO WITNESSED THE EVENTS. You've admitted that. That was my point.

Once the story breaks of course mainstream media are going to have to report it, otherwise they would look silly if it's out there but not picked up by the mainstream media. Besides they were already killing innocent Iraqis by then so it had served it's purpose. Obviously many things are kept out of the mainstream media. It is controlled by the few, this is why all mainstream media generally report the same stories as one another. BBC news reports the same as C4, ITV, SKY, C5, CNN, FOX etc. they're given a script on what to report and how to report it, that's why all of the programmes/stories reported are the same as they are on other non related news sources. Watch the news tonight on different channels, you will struggle to see much difference between two news bulletins who are supposed to be from 2 broadcasting companies who are supposed to be independent of each other. They all get their script from a central source.

You've obviously taken my point on Rupert Murdoch as your silence is deafening on my point raised about him as an example of one mans power within media world wide. There are others just like him but you know that don't you?.

Can you please provide with with a list of trustworthy mainstream media sources.

Did you watch the CNN video I posted last night?, would CNN be on your list of trustworthy mainstream media sources?.

You appear to be trying to make the point that the first Gulf War was justified by media manipulation. My recollection was that one sovereign country (Iraq) invaded another sovereign country (Kuwait) and a coalition of over 30 countries joined together to respond to Iraq's annexation of Kuwait. It didn't need any media manipulation to justify the response. Why did you refer to a totally exaggerated version of the incubator story to make your point? Why not use the real story? Having made this point you appear to be inferring that everything that is reported by mainstream media is suspicious even though the exaggerated story was only in a book and then only replicated by conspiracy nuts. From this and a few other examples of inaccurate or fabricated stories you have implied that the Paris attacks were faked!

You then made a rather bizarre assertion that all mainstream media outlets get their script from a central source. What is this central source? If you really believe that you're clearly nuts.

 

[Anonymous]

I refuse to watch real life snuff movies, so I am not commenting on this being a hoax or not.

I'm not saying the video is a hoax before somebody asks me this.

you have implied that the Paris attacks were faked.

You appear to be trying to make the point that the first Gulf War was justified by media manipulation.

Nope. I have added my OP's from earlier in the thread, I ensured everybody knew I haven't watched the video.

Nope (again!). I was stating a staged event was set up to garner support for war internally in the U.S.

If you had read what I had posted you would've seen that congress and the American voters were reluctant to go to war they were in favour of giving Sadam time to meet the deadline issued by the U.S.

It also stated it (the incubator fable) was the significant trigger for the congress and the American people to give their blessing to reluctantly go to war. They hated Sadam for it.

Instead the U.S. Went to war before the deadline expired.

Sadam was wrong for invading another country (it still happens today) but.....

Is the New York Times mainstream enough?, the transcript can also be viewed on the Bush Library and the Margaret Thatcher Foundation online. How mainstream can you get?. Surely this meets your approval?.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

April Glaspie U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 1960s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Maybe Sadam was duped?, at the same time so was congress and the American people.

That was Gulf war 1. Gulf war 2 had code name "curveball", WMD bollocks and the death of David Kelly. More lies!.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm not saying the video is a hoax before somebody asks me this.

you have implied that the Paris attacks were faked.

You appear to be trying to make the point that the first Gulf War was justified by media manipulation.

Nope. I have added my OP's from earlier in the thread, I ensured everybody knew I haven't watched the video.

Nope (again!). I was stating a staged event was set up to garner support for war internally in the U.S.

If you had read what I had posted you would've seen that congress and the American voters were reluctant to go to war they were in favour of giving Sadam time to meet the deadline issued by the U.S.

It also stated it (the incubator fable) was the significant trigger for the congress and the American people to give their blessing to reluctantly go to war. They hated Sadam for it.

Instead the U.S. Went to war before the deadline expired.

Sadam was wrong for invading another country (it still happens today) but.....

Is the New York Times mainstream enough?, the transcript can also be viewed on the Bush Library and the Margaret Thatcher Foundation online. How mainstream can you get?. Surely this meets your approval?.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

April Glaspie U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 1960s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Maybe Sadam was duped?, at the same time so was congress and the American people.

That was Gulf war 1. Gulf war 2 had code name "curveball", WMD bollocks and the death of David Kelly. More lies!.

As this thread was supposed to be about the shootings in Paris, I foolishly assumed there was at least a tenuous link between what you were posting about the first Gulf war and what happened in Paris. It appears I was wrong and you are just posting random stories that show that the mainstream media can't always be trusted. Why don't you start a separate thread on it because all this Gulf war stuff is totally irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Elbow beards]

There are 3 choices here:
1, the video footage is real.
2, the video footage is fake, but all the other killing are real. In which case why bother faking 1 murder, no point.
3, the video footage is fake as is everything else that happened that day. In which case that would be one he'll of a conspiracy!!
I can't image many would go for number 3,so it just leaves the question why go to the time and effort to fake killing the cop (which his own family must of colluded in) when all the other killing were real.
If someone could come up with a reasonable argument, then I might change my mine, but for now it's number 1 for me.

 

[Damocles]

There are 3 choices here:
1, the video footage is real.
2, the video footage is fake, but all the other killing are real. In which case why bother faking 1 murder, no point.
3, the video footage is fake as is everything else that happened that day. In which case that would be one he'll of a conspiracy!!
I can't image many would go for number 3,so it just leaves the question why go to the time and effort to fake killing the cop (which his own family must of colluded in) when all the other killing were real.
If someone could come up with a reasonable argument, then I might change my mine, but for now it's number 1 for me.

4. The video footage is real and somebody made a mistake.

5. The video footage is real but wasn't the moment he was shot in the head.

6. The video footage is real and we're not ballistics experts so don't understand why the bullet did what it did.

7. Aliens.

Basically there are more choices than you gave there.