CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
Originally posted by Zcylen
Pope is the Leader of the catholics in the world. do these religions have a world leader?
I'd like to know
You are asking the wrong Luftwaffe skeleton that question!
World Peace Day
- Thread starter Sultan Bhargash
- Start date
You are asking the wrong Luftwaffe skeleton that question!
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
That is a very narrow minded view to take, given that the organisers of one of the protest in London, one of the biggest with around 2 million, consists of a great many differeing groups.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/groups.asp lists most of them. As this page shows they hardly consist this image you are giving them. Indeed religious groups feature heavily, I would hardly call christians 'Maoist's'.
Greadius
:yeah:
Yeah, lets take a look at those listed under "Political"Political Groups
National
Alliance for Workers' Liberty
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Great Britain
Fight Racism Fight Imperialism
Revolutionary Communist Group
Globalise Resistance
Green Party
Humanist Movement
Labour Against the War
Lawyers Against the War
Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Campaigning for Palestinian Human Rights
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain M-L
Revolutionary Marxist Group
Revolutionary Socialist League
Socialist Alliance
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Party
Socialist Resistance
Socialist Worker Student Society
Socialist Workers Party
The WOMBLES
Workers Power
I didn't exempt any group from the list of National Political Groups. That is hardly my idea of a cross section of politics.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
OK, where do I vote?
Switch625
I don't care.
What's a WOMBLE?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
Switch625
I don't care.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Looks vaguely Muppet Show-ish.
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
ummmm.......then why are you catholic?
Greadius
:yeah:
"The White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles exists to promote anarchist ideas, libertarian solidarity, autonomous self-organisation and humour. There is no leadership; everyone involved participates equally in its organisation and actions."
Another mainstream movement.
Switch625
I don't care.
I prefer Curt's organization!
Switch625
I don't care.
Oh, yeah, I should mention there were about 140 people out demonstrating on "world peace day" in Champaign. It was actually kind of impressive because we were having a blizzard that day. It would have been more impressive if the "protest" had been organized by someone other than ANSWER, which (to my knowledge) does not have a local chapter.
In other words, the protesters were imported. The locals are too smart to be out in the middle of a blizzard protesting.
In other words, the protesters were imported. The locals are too smart to be out in the middle of a blizzard protesting.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I thought that was his job?
Switch625
I don't care.
Originally posted by Hitro
I thought that was his job?
That's SUPPOSED to be his job. The Catholics in the United States give him no end of headaches. American Catholics are pretty rebellious. If the US weren't such a cash cow for the church, he'd probably place the whole nation under interdict.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Did I say I knew more about being a scotsman then you Curt ?
Nope, I would never have the effrontery to do that, that is why the hubris of people who aern't from here can comment here as to what being a real Americans is somewhat suspect.
Anyone from their own country knows it far better then an outsider, something some of you should keep in mind.
Gradius' list underscores something I touched on, many were DUPED.
That protest wasn't anti-war, it was anti-Bush, and here in the US, Anti-American, formed by people that want an end to the USA.
The concept that Bush is as bad or worse then Saddam Hussein borders on idocy, it could very well be the vilest nonsense I ever heard.
Nope, I would never have the effrontery to do that, that is why the hubris of people who aern't from here can comment here as to what being a real Americans is somewhat suspect.
Anyone from their own country knows it far better then an outsider, something some of you should keep in mind.
Gradius' list underscores something I touched on, many were DUPED.
That protest wasn't anti-war, it was anti-Bush, and here in the US, Anti-American, formed by people that want an end to the USA.
The concept that Bush is as bad or worse then Saddam Hussein borders on idocy, it could very well be the vilest nonsense I ever heard.
napoleon526
Emperor
Is there a difference between these groups? Is one less great than the other?
Greadius
:yeah:
Well, they each have their own webpage:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/
From the second party's outline:
"At the same time, the confidence of many has been shaken by the upheaval in a number of socialist states and, in Britain, by the reformist betrayal of Communist Party of Great Britain leaders, which led to the party's re-establishment in the Communist Party of Britain. In this complex situation, the Communist Party of Britain's programme outlined in The British Road to Socialism is still the only realistic strategy for fundamental change in the advance to socialism put forward by any party."
Uh oh. Sounds like they couldn't decide who was the greatest amongst equals peacefully
From the NYtimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html
******
Behind the Great Divide
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly because we see different news.
Let's back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French products.
But France's attitude isn't exceptional. Last Saturday's huge demonstrations confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush administration and skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European nations, whatever position their governments may take. In fact, the biggest demonstrations were in countries whose governments are supporting the Bush administration.
There were big demonstrations in America too. But distrust of the U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even among our British allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's most dangerous nation ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News coverage is a large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book, "What Liberal Media?" doesn't stress international comparisons, but the difference between the news reports Americans and Europeans see is a stark demonstration of his point. At least compared with their foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S. media are strikingly conservative and in this case hawkish.
I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences, but the major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least seem to be describing the same reality.
Most people, though, get their news from TV and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.
What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported Saturday's events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.
So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are cowards.
Europeans, who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why Iraq rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda has become the focus of U.S. policy. That's why so many of them question American motives, suspecting that it's all about oil or that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it knows it can defeat. They don't see opposition to an Iraq war as cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.
There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.
So which is it? I've reported, you decide.
******
Not that anyone here would be surprised about the news beeing bias in one way or the other. But perhaps we give to mush credit to people(including ourself) to be able to distance themself from what they see.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html
******
Behind the Great Divide
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly because we see different news.
Let's back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French products.
But France's attitude isn't exceptional. Last Saturday's huge demonstrations confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush administration and skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European nations, whatever position their governments may take. In fact, the biggest demonstrations were in countries whose governments are supporting the Bush administration.
There were big demonstrations in America too. But distrust of the U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even among our British allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's most dangerous nation ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News coverage is a large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book, "What Liberal Media?" doesn't stress international comparisons, but the difference between the news reports Americans and Europeans see is a stark demonstration of his point. At least compared with their foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S. media are strikingly conservative and in this case hawkish.
I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences, but the major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least seem to be describing the same reality.
Most people, though, get their news from TV and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.
What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported Saturday's events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.
So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are cowards.
Europeans, who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why Iraq rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda has become the focus of U.S. policy. That's why so many of them question American motives, suspecting that it's all about oil or that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it knows it can defeat. They don't see opposition to an Iraq war as cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.
There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.
So which is it? I've reported, you decide.
******
Not that anyone here would be surprised about the news beeing bias in one way or the other. But perhaps we give to mush credit to people(including ourself) to be able to distance themself from what they see.
Greadius
:yeah:
Ahh, when all else fails, blame the media
What is interesting about this is how he does generalization to specific distortion. First, he tells us that the papers do a pretty good job (he, of course, draws his paycheck from a newspaper). Then, he tells us that most people get their news from TV (which isn't exactly true; the number of people who claim TV as their only source of news is a true minority). THEN, he cites CNN and FOX for their coverage (which is watched by an ultra-minority of TV news viewers, and an even SMALLER minority of people who ONLY get their news from those sources). THEN he cites a Fox EDITORIAL (much like he does for a living, so he knows its just an opinion) as an example of biased coverage. And to top it off, he cites the fact that CNN actually carried Iraqi celebration as well as the protestors themselves with multiple stories (how many of his wonderful European media covered Iraqs reaction?).
He distorted almost as nicely as Fox
P.S., I've felt the need to say this for a long time. I question the administration on a daily basis and have never been called unpatriotic (I can hear this one coming...). I'm sick of people spouting anti-American garbage and then getting all defensive and surprised when they're called unpatriotic. Its like me spouting my pro-American garbage and then taking offense to being called patriotic
What is interesting about this is how he does generalization to specific distortion. First, he tells us that the papers do a pretty good job (he, of course, draws his paycheck from a newspaper). Then, he tells us that most people get their news from TV (which isn't exactly true; the number of people who claim TV as their only source of news is a true minority). THEN, he cites CNN and FOX for their coverage (which is watched by an ultra-minority of TV news viewers, and an even SMALLER minority of people who ONLY get their news from those sources). THEN he cites a Fox EDITORIAL (much like he does for a living, so he knows its just an opinion) as an example of biased coverage. And to top it off, he cites the fact that CNN actually carried Iraqi celebration as well as the protestors themselves with multiple stories (how many of his wonderful European media covered Iraqs reaction?).
He distorted almost as nicely as Fox
P.S., I've felt the need to say this for a long time. I question the administration on a daily basis and have never been called unpatriotic (I can hear this one coming...). I'm sick of people spouting anti-American garbage and then getting all defensive and surprised when they're called unpatriotic. Its like me spouting my pro-American garbage and then taking offense to being called patriotic
Similar threads
- Locked
