What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
.... it means this is a lie!
Now, follow my link to the RT website and watch original video of PBS News Hour program, where the stolen footage appears.
Not necessarily but the source is suspicious. Especially when you linked from press tv. The video isn't working for me now.
PBS is a non profit organization and while they may have made a mistake in their fact checking they're not owned by the US government or advertisers so I don't believe they're susceptible to propaganda.
Edit - just did a google search and only a couple Russian sites, press tv and some crank conspiracy sites are reporting this.
Ok, what about this video? The moment is at 2:20
Link to video.
No, they merely took video footage from official channel of Russian defense ministry and put it in their news report, where voice in background talks about US targeting ISIS oil infrastructure.
I also don't think that this should qualify as a mistake in fact checking, or being susceptible to propaganda. This is something else
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Anyway it is weird they reported it as US air force videos when anybody can see the large green cyrillic characters all around the screen...
Ok, what about this video? The moment is at 2:20
Link to video.
No, they merely took video footage from official channel of Russian defense ministry and put it in their news report, where voice in background talks about US targeting ISIS oil infrastructure.
I also don't think that this should qualify as a mistake in fact checking, or being susceptible to propaganda. This is something else
Oh my God, you guys are making a huge deal out of a 2 second piece of footage.
I guess this is because people in Iran and Russia think PBS is a major news source and/or government owned. It's a public non profit organization funded by donations. It is not the BBC or CNN.
Look at how press tv spins this.
A major US media outlet that hardly anyone watches.
It seems they have become de-facto military allies, at least for the duration of Syrian war. And just today's news - Iran is getting Russian S-300 SAMs:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/838491
Personally, I'm not making a huge deal out of it - merely one forum post.
The bigger deal for me is that people ask for confirmation of the info published by RT, like it would publish a hoax on a level of yellow press and obscure conspiracy sites.
Obscure conspiracy sites and Russian sites are the only ones reporting on it now besides press tv. I searched for it on google to see who else brought it up. When your first link to this is press tv it makes me pretty skeptical. It is a new story just coming out today so maybe more internationally known sites without a clear bias will pick it up. If a site is owned by the Russian government it does make me skeptical of bias over something that would make Russia look good, especially when talking about a non profit non government organization's reports. Also your response to r16 as well as others commenting on this make it look like it was an official response by the US.
My response about 'US response' was a joke and contained smile
But since you replied to factual information and questioned its correctness, I felt need to confirm that it is true. By the way, the fact that the organization is non-governmental doesn't mean its reports are non-affiliated. It still receives funding from somewhere.
But since you replied to factual information and questioned its correctness, I felt need to confirm that it is true. By the way, the fact that the organization is non-governmental doesn't mean its reports are non-affiliated. It still receives funding from somewhere.
My response about 'US response' was a joke and contained smile
But since you replied to factual information and questioned its correctness, I felt need to confirm that it is true. By the way, the fact that the organization is non-governmental doesn't mean its reports are non-affiliated. It still receives funding from somewhere.
My response about 'US response' was a joke and contained smile
But since you replied to factual information and questioned its correctness, I felt need to confirm that it is true. By the way, the fact that the organization is non-governmental doesn't mean its reports are non-affiliated. It still receives funding from somewhere.
Is it unreasonable to question its correctness? Should we automatically accept something as true, especially when it comes from a shady source? You can see how this is used as propaganda by Iran. PBS in America is kind of a joke in how underfunded and unwatched it is aside from a few dedicated people in the baby boomer generation. They do have some good documentaries, I'm not saying its a bad network but to talk about it like its a major news source or affiliated with the US government is just inaccurate.
I really doubt the American military or associated groups donated money to PBS to show a 2 second clip of air strikes.
On a related note, air service here in Iraqi Kurdistan has been suspended until Wednesday because of Russian air strikes. No flights in or out or here.
Just to fact check for you. Though PBS is private non-profit, they still are partially funded by the US government ($445 million USD as of 2014 budget). PBS has stated repeatedly that they are not politically motivated but one can see how this might make the channel suspect in the eyes of another country.
Note I'm not agreeing with the crazy Russian websites, just stating that I could see how another country might view PBS as suspect given a huge amount of funding doesn't come from the US Federal government.
You didn't get what we were talking about. But never mind, I doubt you will bother to do it anyway.
Well I doubt most of these people have heard of PBS let alone familiar with its funding. Of course it's pretty different from press tv and rt which are actually government owned stations.
Turkey just intentionally shot down an "allied" Russian fighter jet in the ISIS theatre... Now there is going to be some kind of emergency NATO meeting to discuss... This situation is unravelling fast... I'm sure WW3 is not the correct response to the terrorist attacks in Paris.
aelf
Ashen One
Depends on who you ask. I'm sure ISIS thinks that is the best response. It would be like the Byzantines, Sassanians and Arabs all over again, or so they might think.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,171
back in the days when WW III was just a joke , the Chinese actually used footage from Top Gun to Show off their air power potential , destroying MiG-78s MiG-28s ... Americans fell off their chairs laughing . Stuff happenz . Don't see why this should result in a page of discussions when current Russian allegations that ISIL oil smuggling is done by the company of the PM's son . It wouldn't hurt the US to be somewhat liberal with footage and not weapon expenditure ?
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
The only reasonable response is censor any information about terrorists and their acts. The Paris attacks (these and before) look so much as a show with kind of a sub-culture appearing around them, it is a good question which side gains more from them (parties inside France or ISIL), and then some other questions arise you'd call a conspiracy theory.
And of course censoring all terrorism information does not give rise to conspiracy theories...
I think the Londoners did a very good show of what a proper response to terrorist attacks is: absolutely nothing. You go on with your lives. Unfortunately, Paris isn't London and France isn't the UK.
I think the Londoners did a very good show of what a proper response to terrorist attacks is: absolutely nothing. You go on with your lives. Unfortunately, Paris isn't London and France isn't the UK.
Similar threads
- Poll
