Hey, MSNBC. Yeah, I'm talking to you. Thanks for the snuff videos you just showed.

[Cleita]

We have seen some of the films before of people being gassed and dying in Syria. We are aware of the horror, but showing these videos to gin up the war drumming being done is really not cool. It doesn't help considering that the source of those videos is still questionable, which even your host mentioned. It's not that they aren't real, but we still don't know whose at fault. There is just not firm intelligence yet to point an accusing finger. So please be journalists and stick to the known facts.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. I don't watch that channel anymore.

[Cleita]

3. There's nothing much else on Saturday. I switch between them and Al Jazeera now.

I have to be really in a dry desert of news information to put CNN on and if it's just down to Fox News, I turn the TV off.

[Judi Lynn]

31. However, at night, there's always that wonderful prison stuff, "Lockup."

Just doesn't get any better, does it?

Reminds one of the time in English history when administrators gave the public the opportunity to enter the mental asylum for public viewing of the patients for entertainment. Not a lot of difference, from what I tell, beyond the great advancements we've made in technology!

[tavalon]

61. I don't have cable

but when I choose to watch any streaming channels, I go to Al Jazeera first and BBC second. I only watch my favorites on MSNBC.

[Flatulo]

97. Is Al Jazerra still streaming? I'd heard they went dark once cable and sat picked them up.

[tavalon]

150. It's been a while

I've been busy trying not to drown in my own life, so it's possible. Damn.

[Chan790]

70. In an age of manufactured news cycles...

f**k-all is ever going to happen on a Saturday unless it's a natural disaster or someone is exceedingly media-unsavvy.

I find it's a good day to watch America's Test Kitchen on PBS. Maybe baseball or college football, if you're into sports...I'm really not.

[Cleita]

72. I'm not into sports and that's mainly what's on or commercials to try to make you buy stuff.

No cooking shows for me. I'll just want to eat more than I should. Later on in the evening, when I'm newsed out, I'll probably pop in a DVD of a movie.

[leveymg]

102. Caution on al Jazeera - it was established by the Emir of Qatar.

It's been a continuous drumbeater for foreign intervention in Syria going back to March, '11.

[Cleita]

104. I've been watching it a long time, even before they took over Current TV.

By and large they have good programming. One must take with a grain of salt any puff pieces about Qatar, but when reporting on stories that they don't have a dog in the fight, they have excellent coverage and they cover many things we never do, like stories out of Africa or South America or parts of Asia we don't do business with. Even though I figure that a lot of their ME coverage is biased, when there is breaking news, they are often the first and sometimes even the only raw coverage before all the "journalists" from the main networks arrive.

[mick063]

2. MSNBC has become televised BOG

They have sworn fealty regardless of the stakes.

[Whisp]

14. and they were BOGGERS for Bush's Iraq war too?

they hype up any war.
war toys sold by GE signs their pay checks.

Bringing the Barack Obama Group into this, the way you did, is shitty.

[mick063]

25. The BOG wants war.

That is the basic "gist" of it.

It appears that it is more important for the President to appear politically strong than understanding the true nature of this.

He played the sequester game to gain the political upper hand with the GOP, then made it all vanish by a huge lobbying effort to spend money on more military adventurism against the will of most Americans.

The President "bought in" to the GOP concept that our deficit was the biggest problem by putting "entitlements" on the negotiating table. Now, we have surprisingly discovered that we can capably conduct expensive military exercises as such adventurism has "already been paid for."

[treestar]

27. Oh BS

Nobody wants war. It is not important that the President look politically strong. It is the ODS ranting here that just wants the President to be wrong on everything. If he wanted to leave Syria alone, the same posters would be ranting on about how he's not helping people who are victims of chemical weapons.

[another_liberal]

107. If nobody wants war . . .

Don't tell us we "just want the President to be wrong." I have always been happy to support the President when he made good decisions. This choice to start a new war is not a good decision. Do you really think nine out of ten posters on DU are just mindlessly anti-Obama? That is pure bull, and you know it.

As to your point that "nobody wants war": If nobody wants war, then who was that Black guy who spent his entire time in Russia twisting the arms of every World leader at the G-20 to try and get a coalition to go to war against Syria? Who is that tall, white-haired fellow who's been doing the same on Capitol Hill? Yes, there are people who want war. The American people don't want war by a large majority, but their top leaders clearly do.

[treestar]

161. If you're around enough you will see which posters

find the President to be always wrong and have mindless conspiracy type beliefs regarding "the banksters" and the like Evil Beings Controlling Everything.

[another_liberal]

171. Blaming "the banksters?" I say!

Pure rubbish, that lot, pure rubbish! What! What!

[Whisp]

29. bullshit. The BOG wants to hear the President out

of course I can't speak for all of the Group, but I have heard this blanket accusational bullshit here before that we are bloodthirsty warmongers.

Some want the Barack Obama Group to look as evil as they think the President himself is. That is what is going on here.

[FSogol]

37. Completely agree. n/t

[mick063]

77. You know as well as I do.

If the President had not asked for a Congressional vote and had acted unilaterally to strike Syria, you would have collectively "dove in" head first and backed his decision every step of the way.


There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.


The "wait for more information" meme is recycled spin from the faction that is looking for an excuse, any excuse, to vote yes on Syria strikes.

To answer your reply ahead of time:

It doesn't matter what exclusive intel the President has.
It doesn't matter that Assad conclusively used chemical weapons.

What matters is that we are broke from bailing out those that live in tax havens and it is time for the world to collectively claim a portion of global civic responsibility. If it is vital to send a global message, let Europe do it this time. On their own. Without US blood and treasure. That would send the strongest possible message.

[Whisp]

81. well, then it's all settled, you know everything about everyone.

case closed.

[Progressive dog]

121. So attacking Syria is Okay if Europe does it,

or if we got Europe to pay for it?

[cui bono]

112. The BOG is a very bad place, not sure I'd call it evil, but it is

a bigoted, closed minded and nasty group that discriminates, hates facts and is against any robust discussion of issues/policies. It should be banned, rather than be allowed to remain as a clique that bans anyone who states facts they don't like to hear, to quote my other post.

Of course they want to hear the president out. That's ALL they want to hear, whatever the president says. And you know who else acts/acted like that. That's right. You know.

[KittyWampus]

46. the Barack Obama Group on DU wants war? Care to back up that blatant bullshit?

[Dragonfli]

76. I apologize for my friends, they just did not know you guys were anti bombing Syria

And were advocated peace instead.

There are infiltrators that you should check out, I swear some that post in that group were actively seeking military intervention and interference in the Syrian civil conflict, you should boot them out for misrepresenting your views.

[cui bono]

113. Problem is they don't know what their views are until Obama tells them.

[Raksha]

114. What does BOG stand for?

I guess I've been out of the loop for a while, because somehow I missed this acronym.

[Dragonfli]

117. Barack Obama Group (every day I find I am behind on some acronym or other) link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1102

[cui bono]

118. Well it has many meanings... officially it is Barack Obama Group.

But you can also apply the traditional definition and the urban definition just as easiliy.

Merriam-Webster:

2bog
verb
bogged bog·ging
Definition of BOG
transitive verb
: to cause to sink into or as if into a bog : impede, mire —usually used with down
intransitive verb
: to become impeded or stuck —usually used with down
See bog defined for English-language learners »
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bog

Urban Dictionary:

Random Word
2. Bog


The process of refusing to believe any logical thought/reasoning and create a theory based on no hard facts. The theory is usualy based on a forum post or a paragraph someone once read which was meaningless and untrue. Even if hard facts are presented to discourage the bog theory or totally falsify it, the individual refuses to accpet the truth.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bog

[Raksha]

136. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know BOG stood for Barack Obama Group,

because I've never been bogged down in the BOG. In fact I didn't even know it was there. But it's the Urban Dictionary definition you posted that seems most applicable to O-bots:

2. Bog


The process of refusing to believe any logical thought/reasoning and create a theory based on no hard facts. The theory is usually based on a forum post or a paragraph someone once read which was meaningless and untrue. Even if hard facts are presented to discourage the bog theory or totally falsify it, the individual refuses to accept the truth.

[OwnedByCats]

159. And in Britain

bog is slang for toilet .... Just saying.

[cui bono]

163. Well that applies then since the ideas that are floating around in there are...

well, you know.

[OwnedByCats]

184. Yep lol

That's why I said it .... sorry all! Just not that keen on another war ....

[cui bono]

109. The way the BOG treats fellow DUers is "shitty" to use your words.

That is a bigoted, closed minded and nasty group that discriminates, hates facts and is against any robust discussion of issues/policies. It should be banned, rather than be allowed to remain as a clique that bans anyone who states facts they don't like to hear.

[Whisp]

115. if you come into the BOG all ready for bear

and spew the nasty shit about Obama plastered on every other wall here on DU, then yeah, you get your ass kicked out real fast, and hard.

sorry if you think that's shitty. too shitten bad.

[cui bono]

116. See? Just like I said. Your last two sentences sum it all up.

And show what a "shitty" attitude and "shitty" bunch of characters the BOG is and just how "shitty" they are to their "fellow" DUers.

sorry if you think that's shitty. too shitten bad.

The fact that you posted that with presumably a "straight face" speaks wonders and proves my point completely. You are "inside the bubble" to use Maher's term, and we all know who's in there with you.

[Whisp]

119. o yeh, I forgot the rule about 'being nice'

like everyone else is here.

[cui bono]

126. Everyone else here does not let their denial of facts make them ban others from groups.

[Whisp]

130. you don't like the group system? Take it up with Skinner

and/or stay out of groups you are not welcome in.

[cui bono]

133. Nice try at deflecting the point. Doesn't change the facts, which you didn't refute.

I guess that's progress.

[karynnj]

172. The purpose of the groups was to create a safe place for people fitting the charter of the group

Why do you feel the need to go into that small corner of DU? I assure you, everyone in any group completely understands the dominant beliefs of the main forums.

Read some of the threads and you will see people who plead that in disagreeing with the President, you do not need to smear his motives and character are themselves attacked in extreme ways - at least as bad as what you say the BOG did. In general, I have found that many of the least aggressive people on DU are mostly in one group or another. Obviously, they are not here to fight.

[cui bono]

173. I answered your other post... see that.

But no, the BOG is absolutely not looking for an honest discussion. I've peeked in there, by accident actually, and in the only 2-3 threads I looked at I saw them making nasty comments about other DUers as a whole, and talking like they are fighting a war with the rest of DU. Seriously, just like those people who I'm not allowed to compare them to.

Nothing obvious about the BOGgers not being here to fight. They are the most antagonistic group I have seen. And they are cowards for not allowing facts to be posted, even if done in the most civil manner. They are hiding their heads in the sand.

I don't feel a need to go in there... see my other reply for details.

[karynnj]

175. Try this experiment

Take a Syria thread on Obama (or Kerry) and assume that whatever your opinion on a limited strike. you have respect for the man's integrity and intelligence, even if you disagree with his position. Read the first 10 or so posts - that in most threads reject the motives the man cited are true and infer that the motives are as base as possible. Then look at how anyone who disputes even the worst claims is treated. That is what they people are responding to -- at a site they likely joined when being here was much more enjoyable.

[cui bono]

177. You know what? It's on both sides. DU simply does not have a good moderating system.

The policy should be that any posts that include nastiness, insults, etc... should be deleted and the poster given a warning. After a certain number of warnings you're banned. Period. By the same token, the BOG should be banned for the same reasoning. Especially since they are not interested in really discussing policy. As soon as there is a criticism of Obama it turns to the fact that Obama got criticized and off the policy under discussion.

There's better moderating on cell phone and car message boards and those discussions don't even get very heated! Although the political one on the car board I used to frequent did, and it had both ends of the spectrum on it and there was zero tolerance for name calling, or being nasty. Unfortunately, lies were okay, so some of us were constantly rebutting those, but it was done matter of factly, not with immature retorts as seen on here.

[karynnj]

180. I agree that the nastiness is inexcusable and counter productive

However, it is usually not this bad as there has never been the series of issues that people here care as passionately about and which split the population as NSA and Syria have. My hope is that once those issues find resolution (and I hope a magical diplomatic solution is found for Syria though I am not optimistic) , things might become more cordial.

Anyway - nice conversation and I hope that you have a bit more understanding of what the groups are and even if you don't see the value in them that I do.

[Scootaloo]

181. "Spew the nasty shit about obama"

Yeah, that or disagreeing with someone who's bashing the left, and pointing out to him that missiles don't help people.

In fact I suspect that out of the other 116 people - a staggering number - banned from the bog, it's more likely the latter than the former.

So there's that. Disagreeing with an anti-left, pro-war poster is deemed "disrupting" the swamp's purpose... Go figure! But you're totally not pro-war, nor are you right-winger, oh no sir, not at all

[Whisp]

182. don't you worry your little head about BOG business.

You just carry on throwing sewage at the President wherever you like, but not in the group. There is lots of room for you to play.

If I recall correctly, that's been a habit of yours for a while now.

[Scootaloo]

183. Well, you don't recall correctly

I'm curious if you can actually come up with a sane explanation of how the post I linked is "throwing sewage at the president." or how it's even disruptive to the bog.

DontTreadOnMe goes on an anti-left rant, and calls sympathy for the hungry and homeless.
Scootaloo calls him out on how much anti-left stuff he'd been posting on DU, and points out people can't eat or live in missiles.

At what point was there mention of Obama? At what point was there even sewage?

So. Your claim of what people get banned from the bog over is a lie, first off. Then your claim against me is another lie. Mmm. Is this a habit for you, Whisp?

Anyway. I'm not trying to change my status on the bog - having seen the sort of people run the show there i honestly think I'm better off with the group trashed. If I wanted to read stuff from anti-left shitheads who want to bomb middle eastern countries, I can go to any number of actual right-wing sites to deal with your like. But please, at least be honest with the rest of DU about what kind of standards you're running with, kay?

[karynnj]

169. Why are you threatened because there is a group that by definition respects and generally supports

Obama. It is a small group designed co be a place where people can have a conversation with people who have identified themselves as supporters of the President. There are several groups and each is defined in a post at the top of the group's posts. I know that I have benefited by having the groups - and my experience is that the groups provide both a safe place when the forums are hostile and they provide a place where posters can and do come to know each other. (In the Kerry group a large number of us have met in person.)

The question I have is why - if you are not a member of the BOG - do you feel the need to read it and to get angry about its existence? You may not feel welcome there, but it is a tiny corner of DU. At the moment, there may be many people from the BOG who are attacked on the main forums.

[cui bono]

170. I'm not threatened. Doesn't change the fact that it is a bigoted and discriminatory group

that goes against the supposed goal of having discussions about policy. The fact that they ban people from the group for simply posting facts is crazy.

I don't go looking to read it, but if I click on a thread on the greatest page I don't check to see where it is located before reading it. If the group is going to shut out most of the DUers then their threads shouldn't show up on the greatest page. I could be wrong, I certainly don't know the ins and outs of groups on DU, but I think that there are other groups whose threads are not able to be seen on the greatest page. Considering that BOG stifles discussion and ideas rather than promotes them, and that they exclude most of DU, I feel they should then be left in their own area and not visible to the majority of DU who is not allowed to participate in it.

[karynnj]

174. I think that all the groups threads CAN go to the greatest page,

but it is rare for many of them because they do not have the number of posts or recommendations to do so. I actually agree with you that it might - given the charter of the groups as safe places - that they NOT go to the latest or the greatest page. Then, only those looking for the BOG would go there.

There are times when the main groups do not facilitate discussion. I really do not think that there are many real productive discussions where information is exchanged and reasons for various positions are explained are happening in many of the threads in the forums. There is far too much anger toward anyone not 100% in agreement.

[cui bono]

176. I agree, there is far too much anger. I've alerted on OPs that agree with my position

that I felt were divisive in nature. DU should have a much better moderating system where any nastiness is simply not tolerate and only OPs discussing policy should be allowed.

I don't even necessarily agree with me posting about the BOG the way I do, but if the BOG is allowed to discriminate for no reason at all and be as nasty as they are then I feel I am allowed to speak my mind about them. But DU would be a much better place with much better moderation that disallowed both the BOG's mentality and my posts about them, among other things.

[karynnj]

178. I agree with much of that, but I do think the groups have value

I think during the primaries, they were great places to have the discussions on your candidate of choice where information is shared and people can become excellent advocates. I selfishly like them because when I joined in early 2005, I met a large group of people from whom I learned many ways to find REAL information - using the Congressional record and the Committees websites. It is incredible how much is available. I also met a large portion of the people over the years and was surprised that people were pretty much how they presented themselves.

Many of us were pushed to be more politically active in real life from our experience here. Not to mention - in a few cases where we actually went away from the written rule to investigate issues not specifically related to the politician of the group - it was a supportive friendly group where we could learn from others areas of knowledge and comfortably develop or change our own position or opinion.

[cui bono]

179. That's great. I'm not against groups in general. Just bigoted, discrimanatory ones that are afraid

of facts and talk as if they are at war with the rest of DU, whom they exclude from their exclusive group.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. Good description n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. At least two hosts have come against this adventure

If not more, hardly bog

[NoOneMan]

4. Will they show the people the US Bombs kill?

I don't remember those during Iraq

[Cleita]

5. Me neither. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

6. exactly.

[Judi Lynn]

19. They wouldn't dare show the victims of the white phosphorus dropped in Iraq.

They just would not have dared, not in a million years.

[treestar]

34. I thought the heroic Edward Snowden leaked that?

As to that, it may be somewhere.

Along with pictures of people killed in 911.

[progressoid]

73. So you're defending Snowden?

Or was that just a snarky response to the over 100,000 civilians that were killed because of our Iraqi clusterfuck?

And then compare it to 9/11. Sweet jesus.

[treestar]

160. The person is objecting to seeing photos, or others seeing photos

of the results of horrific attacks.

But when it was Manning, I guess it was OK.

[NoOneMan]

100. Not that I am aware of

Snowden leaked NSA information. Manning released evidence of torture and war crimes in Iraq. But pictures of victims didn't need to be leaked. They were not classified. They were all over the internet. The media chose not to really show that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. How many deaths from chemical weapons are you willing to accept?

[Bluenorthwest]

98. If that's how it works, then you were willing to accept over 100,000 Syrian deaths

from conventional weapons in this war. Why would you accept such carnage? How do you sleep at night?

[cui bono]

127. +1

[treestar]

162. Take it up with the UN and international community

which does attempt to prevent wars, but failing that, tries to create a few standards to move up from "all's fair in war."

[NoOneMan]

103. About the same as deaths from US bombs

None.

I don't find it acceptable, any more than the proposed "solution". But I don't demand that everything I don't accept is met with force

[RKP5637]

128. Well said! The horrors of what we do are always sanitized. As someone in a post

once said someplace, apparently the horrors from Agent Orange, Napalm and depleted uranium used by the US don't count as chemical weapons.

[NoOneMan]

129. Or white phosphorous (used in Iraq to burn flesh off people)

[RKP5637]

132. In a nation we destroyed for no reason and had no business being in the first place, yet we

always paint ourselves as heroes.

[Catherina]

7. That's one*leak* that won't be investigated n/t

[Cleita]

20. No kidding. n/t

[LittleBlue]

8. I quit watching years ago

They're just trying to be a Democratic version of Faux

[pipi_k]

9. They were

on CNN as well, with a warning that they would be "graphic".

I saw about 3 seconds of the first one and had to change the channel.

Whenever I think about the whole situation it makes me sick.

People dying from what they said was likely Sarin.

But people will die if we bomb.

I'm just sick and feel like crying

[Whisp]

10. You are right, that is despicable.

Which host was it, do you know?

Let's not forget GE is very interested in war profits as they were for the Iraq war. Phil Donahue was fired for being anti iraq war.

Let's not forget that all the hosts there work for their pay checks before anything.

I don't know what to think about the Syria troubles, and how they can be properly solved.

But it is clear as a bell that the media salivate at the thought. And that disgusts me. To put those pics up reminds me of the incubator babies pre-desert storm.

Despicable fuckface, whoever did that.

[Cleita]

13. They put the first ones on the show before Karen Finney with no disclaimer. I forget

the name of the host. Karen Finney showed them again and did the disclaimer once, but since then hasn't. It's been just a string of pundits on. She doesn't seem prepared and is asking pointless questions.

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. You know they posted that for a reason...

Back in the WWi, it was "German soldeiers raping Belgium nuns" news headlines, to get the populace rooting and tooting for war.

MSM has been caught time and again showing faked news, to the point where many people do not consider them reliable.
I honestly have no idea why they are even on the air anymore.

[Cleita]

17. Don't forget the shooting of Germans in a radio station on the Polish border to

make an excuse to invade Poland. The Nazis killed a bunch of prisoners in a concentration camp, dressed them in outfits that I guess the radio station guys wore and a couple of SS uniforms for good measure. Then they invited the press to come and look at the bodies and allowed them to photograph them. The news reporters did that and the Germans were shocked at the newspapers reports and Hitler was then able to invade Poland.

[dixiegrrrrl]

33. I did not know that.

Fascinating.

[liberalhistorian]

12. You're asking the media to

"please be journalists and stick to the known facts?"



Deep breath



Oh, man, thanks for the laugh, I sure needed it today!!

Of course, I'm old enough to remember a time when they mostly did just that, but time has long passed and is dead and gone. Much to our detriment as a democracy and a society.

[Cleita]

22. Yeah, it's funny but it will lead to tragedy.

[Judi Lynn]

15. Thanks for the warning. It's awful being "played" by the media.

They've been insulting the people of this country far too long, while we either learn to "read" them, or we're lost, and just as ignorant as they, the stenographers, and the policy makers, want us to be.

We all remember all the photos we've seen of the genocide in US-supported regimes in Central America, or the state-supported acts of fiendish terrorism (U.S. supported) in South America, oh, wait! We never did! They keep ALL that stuff completely quiet for decades, at a minimum. If we EVER hear about it, it might be by accident.

That's why most of us didn't realize making torture victims, interrogation prisoners walk around with bags over their heads had been done constantly in the Kissinger-supported military dictatorship in Argentina in the '70's, early '80's. Taught all that crap at the School of the Americas.

[Cleita]

18. Exactly. This is just such crap. n/t

[Whisp]

23. I wonder if Finney from MSNBC covered the Honduras coup

under Sec of State Hillary Clinton's watch and showed those suffering bodies and people.

Oh, I bet not, seeing as Finney is/was a Clintonite.

I don't know what the right answers are to Syria, but I do know the media always has the wrong ones.

[Judi Lynn]

36. Yep, you can bet on that, it's a given. n/t

[G_j]

47. exactly right

it's always been that way. Now it's even worse.

[marew]

21. Completely agree!

But then, silly me, I also believe bodies blown up by bombs, riddled with bullets, or decapitated by machetes are gruesome and distressing also. So often we seem to look the other way regarding those.
I tend to suspect something is suspicious here. Someone is trying way too hard.
I saw something earlier where medical supplies- including pain meds and antibiotics- needed to care for so many suffering refugees are seriously dwindling. Why can't we start there? Why? We could help so many on a humanitarian basis right now.
Cleita, as you so correctly said- let's "stick to the known facts" for now.

[Cleita]

24. Humanitarian aid? Medicine? Food?

How will the war mongers profit on that?

[marew]

32. There I go again!

I do not look at the world through dollar signs! When will I ever learn? NEVER, I hope!

[Politicalboi]

44. That would be the BEST thing to do

Also include the UN so this is not just us risking lives to save lives. We could do it. And Make Russia and China allow such aid or they too will be on the wrong side of the UN.

[TheKentuckian]

69. You cannot be on the wrong side of the UN when you are a permanent member of the Security Council

There is no "making" China and Russia to do a damn thing, they have to be dealt with and negotiated with just like we do.

Honestly, even if that wasn't the case, what is it that you think being on the wrong side of the UN means to a world power? We've been on the wrong side a few times ourselves and it means nothing.

Surely you don't believe that Russia or China will be put in order by the world under a blue flag? Please don't be ridiculous.

Nobody but nobody is going to do squat to Russia or China. China could gas 500 million people and suffer little more than a wag of the finger. What did the UN do about Stalin and Mao? Well, they won't even be able to muster that much nothing in the current environment.

[Thinkingabout]

26. There is a lot of hype on many news medias, does not occur only on MSNBC and CNN

I try to check many stories, if they sound too good to be true then they just might be a lie. Most people do searches and believes the story they wanted in the first place.

[Cleita]

35. Actually, most people don't do searches and do critical reading. Most DUers do,

but most people don't. I never know how bad it is until I get engaged in a conversation with someone at the gym or other public place and if we discuss current events at all, they are so propagandized and misinformed, I can't even reply sometimes.

[jimlup]

28. One should not that showing the equivalent US

carnage is considered "bad taste" but there are no cultural barriers against showing propaganda snuff films.

[treestar]

30. Don't look.

Doesn't mean others don't have the right to see the effects. Or to look at them to determine that it was indeed a gas attack. It's a free press.

You should also have been on Bush's side about now showing the coffins of troops coming into Dover Air Force Base. It makes just as much sense. Why should people see the effects of anything and be influenced by that?

[marew]

40. Remember... Regarding dead American soldiers...

Barbara Bush said, "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths. Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

[Cleita]

74. I remember that fetid old bag saying that. I doubt if there is much of a mind up there

and none of it is beautiful.

[Judi Lynn]

82. Perfect word choice for that person, "fetid old bag!" Couldn't be better. n/t

[felix_numinous]

38. Then airing films of the effects of

DU, white phosphorus, and all of what WE have done would be the only FAIR response.

They want to employ shock and awe?? They need to be MADE to sit and watch detailed movies of everything the MIC has done. Everything.

[Cleita]

39. I am all for that. It's what fair and balanced really is. If we are going to show one camp's

atrocities, then we are honor bound to show our atrocities. Also, no one, except Thom Hartmann talks about the effects of depleted uranium on the civilian population of Iraq, especially the freaky birth defects of infants whose mothers were exposed to it.

[marew]

42. EXACTLY!!! nt

[Skidmore]

41. Cleita, I've been also listening to the discussion on MSNBC.

There has been a good debate ongoing today about all sides in this issue with a wide range of facts being presented, not just a showing of "snuff videos." Part of the discussion revolved around who the parties to the conflict are.

I have no objection to the showing of the destruction left by some of these weapons in any conflict. People need to understand that when we are talking about war, the consequences are much more real than blips on a video screen disappearing when zapped.

[Cleita]

43. I don't think they are discussing the real issues here, just the problems Obama is

having with them.

[GeorgeGist]

45. If they could find enough remains to photograph ...

would they show the victims of cluster bombs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2486127

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. you SHOULD see it...

You didn't like the looks of it I bet huh? Well too bad...

[Cleita]

50. I have seen it over and over. I don't think it's necessary for what they are trying

to make of it. There is a difference between showing Germans what the Nazis did during the holocaust because those things hadn't been seen before and trying to gin up a military strike in Syria. We have already seen the videos.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. I think it IS necessary...

You didn't see these new ones they just released before....bless your little heart for not wanting your clean mind to be soiled with the images of death by poison gas...

[Judi Lynn]

53. You're not winning friends here trying to smear others.

You haven't taken the time to actually read the comments.

You are among people who have a very keen grasp of the situation, without the emotional confusion, and the ignorance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. I am not here to win friends...I am here to support Democrats...thus the name "Democratic Undergroun

Nor have I "smeared" anyone...I just use the real definitions of words...

[totodeinhere]

96. Supporting Democrats right or wrong. Right?

We shouldn't let blind partisanship lead us into another war. I don't care whether Barack Obama has a "D" behind his name or not. Our country has no business unilaterally attacking another country.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. I support democrats because I hate republicans..

We are going to strike to take out the chemical weapons...we are not going to indiscriminately bomb civilians..

[totodeinhere]

143. Hating Republicans is no good reason for wanting to attack Syria. In fact the opposite just might

be the case. If Obama goes ahead and attacks Syria it could do great political damage to the Democratic Party and hinder our chances in the 2014 midterm elections. A lot of Democratic strategists are worried about that.

And we are not going to strike to take out the chemical weapons. The chemical weapons will not be a target.

Any strike would not be directly aimed at chemical stockpiles — as that would carry the risk of releasing toxic agents...

http://world.time.com/2013/09/06/obama-orders-military-to-expand-syrian-targets/#ixzz2eJY15CK0

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. can you accept 2 different concepts at the same time?

I didn't say I dont support Republicans so I want to bomb Syria. I said I hate Republicans....so I support Democrats.

I also think that chemical weapons can be taken out with Jdams on military sites.

[Skittles]

135. LOLOL

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. that's exactly right....

[Cleita]

54. Not my mind. How about others, like children, who don't need to see those images on a channel that

most likely wouldn't have parental blocks. But that's not the point. I've seen some pretty gory things when I was a child living in South America and all and survived without nightmares forever. They did go away after a few decades, but it's the purpose with which they were shown. The whole discussion could have been had about Obama's problem about causing more deaths and probably more gruesome videos because nobody wants his war. That whole discussion could have without showing the videos. They could have put them on the MSNBC website and pointed people to it as many others do to open them or not at their discretion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. I grew up watching Viet Nam....

I saw a hell of a lot more real death and destruction in my youth than these kids today...

[Cleita]

60. I grew up in a mining camp and when there was an accidental explosion, I saw them

bring out the injured, dying and dead on the flatbed rail cars, that passed in front of my house, that they brought them out in. Back then there were no ambulances in the mining camp. I saw the men covered in blood, screaming with missing limbs and faces half blown off, guts sometimes falling out. It wasn't a war zone, but I think being that it was because of dynamite it was similar to what happens when people are blown up. I saw it up close, real and personal, but I don't think everyone needs to see it ever in their life time if they weren't there or if for a higher purpose like to push a company into more safety measures, stuff like that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. I do....

they all play video games with fake gore...perhaps they need a dose of reality.

[treestar]

164. Which brings up the question, maybe we should not have

seen those iconic photos - of the girl fleeing napalm or the guy being shot in the head. At least according to this line of thinking.

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. why?

[treestar]

166. The OP doesn't want us seeing the photos from Syria

because we might get upset and want something done.

It reminded me of a discussion on how the country became more eager to question and quit Vietnam due to seeing those photos.

But the OP doesn't realize that was the same thing, or to be consistent, would have to say we should not have seen that either.

IOW the OP is insisting there is an agenda here - so why wouldn't an agenda have been just as bad then?

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. hmmm by that analogy...why do they give us news that happens in any other country?

wouldn't that be the same thing?

[treestar]

168. My analogy may not be working out

I'm for seeing it all.

OP didn't want to see it, so would that have applied to the photos from Vietnam?

[marew]

63. That is NOT what Cleita was saying!

We do not have to see every little bit of every atrocity in history to comprehend the incredible pain and suffering involved. Rather voyeuristic I'd say. I guess some sick people enjoy seeing that type of thing over and over again. Most people do not, thank heaven!

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. we SHOULD see this...

considering so many here are in denial...

[marew]

68. People are not in denial.

They simply want honest information.

Your fervent obsession with watching the same gore and human suffering over and over is not doing your cause any good. Borders a bit on the bizarre, quite frankly.

I would be much more impressed if you called for immediate humanitarian intervention but no- you just advocate watching suffering over and over and over... Do you have the same concern for those riddles with bullets or blown up by bombs?

[pecwae]

139. Not one person

here is in any type of denial chemical attacks, not one. However, there seems to be more than a few in denial of the results of missile attacks. Of course, one death (or maybe a few, perhaps a hundred or so) would be worth it. Right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. the whole "death = death" crowd

all deaths are equal crowd need to see that chemical weapons are much more diabolical...

[marew]

71. Tell that to someone...

who has suffered a slow torturous death from a bomb explosion or from being riddled with bullets or been hacked by a machete.

[Democracyinkind]

83. Oh, so naive...

EVERYONE knows that being killed by bullets is sooooooo much better...

Yes, this is sarcasm, and yes, this mindset actually exists on DU.

Also, White phosphorus somehow isn't a chemical weapon to the people with that mindset.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. White Phospherous is...

but it is allowed to be used for other reasons....as I am sure you know...Bush used it for other reasons...

But lets test your theory of death = death....why did folks jump out of windows in the World Trade Center....rather than burn?

Since it doesn't matter how you die....why would they do that?

[totodeinhere]

93. Maybe we should also see footage of the the US military's use of white phosphorus munitions

in Iraq. And maybe we need to see videos of some of our Viet Nam vets who are dealing with the ravages of exposure to agent orange.

Look, we all know that these terrible things happen. The use of chemical and biological agents is as old as warfare itself. But when certain media outlets continue to show the same scenes over and over again it becomes obvious that there is an agenda involved. In this case it is MSNBC's shilling for Obama's Syrian war.

[RetroLounge]

154. I bet it give you a WARGASM!

You must be tired by now, huh?

All those dead kids, damn, get your war on, spanky!

Enlist now! What's stopping you?

RL

[felix_numinous]

52. MIC war atrocities would take a long time

of hour long nightly specials, each night a different country. Then start the series on covert ops, then extraordinary renditions, one featuring the school of the Americas, and then deposed democratically elected leaders.

"The MIC at War" --it would write itself.

[Judi Lynn]

55. It could take up more time than people have to watch it! n/t

[Cleita]

57. Actually, that could replace the voyeuristic prison videos so popular these days. n/t

[wisteria]

59. These videos show the facts.

Many here keep hiding behind the propaganda idea that someone other than Assad did this. We have known for several years about the stockpiles of chemical weapons he has, we should have acted on this back then, but we ignored the facts back then. It has now come to a point that something has to be done. You can not continue to ignore facts.

[KoKo]

90. And the Dead "Little Ones" sleep...vicitims of Violence...New Ones Every Day!

And the Dead "Little Ones" sleep...vicitims of Violence...New Ones Every Day!

The lifeless bodies of Afghan children lay on the ground before their funeral ceremony, after an airstrike on their extended family household by order of President Barack Obama killed several Afghan adults and at least ten children in Shultan, Shigal district, Kunar, eastern Afghanistan, Sunday, April 7, 2013. (AP Photo)



Date: April 7, 2013

Place: Shigal District of Kunar Province

Circumstances: Eleven children and four women were killed by a NATO airstrike on houses in the Shigal District. Mohammad Zahir Safai, the Shigal district chief, said the woman and the children were killed when the houses collapsed on them. A Reuters journalist saw bodies of 11 children when they were taken to Safai’s office in protest by their families and other villagers on Sunday.

NATO/ISAF response: Captain Luca Carniel, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said they were aware of reports of civilian casualties and were assessing the incident.


http://vcnv.org/atrocities-in-afghanistan-a-troubling-timetable-updated-1

[OnyxCollie]

149. WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says

WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122789/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#storylink=cpy

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

But Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

~snip~

Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. "The tragedy," he said, "is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them."

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Arcanetrance]

67. I think it's good they show it I think the American people need to see this not only when they do it

But when it's something our military has done. Americans have been to far removed from the real world and the effects of war.

[bluestate10]

85. You are dead wrong.

When a bomb in Iraq hit the wrong target, the media showed the result in loop mode. When two different US soldiers went on a rampage and killed civilians, the media showed the scenes over and over. When a group of Marines pissed on the body of dead Taliban, those photos were shown over and over by the media. In all cases, showing the information over and over helped with convicting the soldiers, and the media reported the convictions. When high level military officers do something wrong, that gets reported in the media.

One of the reasons why the President is having problems getting consensus on striking Syria is because of the abundant past reporting about the false information that was used to get the USA into the second Iraq war.

[BainsBane]

75. The source of the films has been made clear

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/29/youtube_syria

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101672442

That you would prefer to ignore suffering of others is your problem entirely.

[marew]

84. Wow! You do not believe it is a bit of a leap...

That someone who is not obsessed with watching people suffering and dying is actually, in fact, ignoring that same suffering?
It is not normal to want to watch pain and suffering, believe me!

[BainsBane]

108. She is objecting to it being shown on television

Which means she does not want he public to see it. It's easy to turn off the TV, but that's not enough. She objects to the very fact it is airing and calls it a "snuf film." It's clear to me this is an effort to distort and deny information to support an anti-war view. The situation is not so simple as people want to make it. There are no good guys in white hats here. Assad is a brutal dictator who gassed his people, AND the US has a bad history of intervening and fucking things up.

I understand it is not typical for the coddled American to be exposed to the horror of war, even when we wage it. The MIC has done everything it can to shelter us from that reality. Here is a case where the suffering has not been created by us, but people continue to insist on hiding form it. People need to know the full reality of what's going on, including the brutality of gassing Syrians.

Also the fact she denied the origins of the video shows she's intent on denying that reality to make her understanding of the problem as simplistic as possible.

If someone wants to hide from the truth, that's here business, but to object to the media's informing the public is pernicious. It's also part of this ongoing meme that MSNBC is supposed to make liberals feel good about themselves rather than report anything that makes us feel uncomfortable. It's one thing for corporate media interests to corrupt news coverage and another for DUer to demand that corruption.

[MFM008]

78. facts?

those are the facts. People being killed by WMDs. Now what to do.

[iamthebandfanman]

80. Why shouldnt people know?

just because it doesn't fit YOUR political agenda ...
doesn't mean people should hear no evil or see no evil and hide under the blankets...


pretty silly and niave of you to ask dontcha think? nah, im sure if you just ignore it enough itll go away.

[marew]

91. So you equate not wanting to watch suffering with 'ignoring'? Wow!

I'd be much more impressed if one of these voyeurs would advocate sending the badly needed supplies- including pain meds, food, and antibiotics- to the suffering refugee victims already desperate for help. Sanjay Gupta spoke earlier about this. Why are these victims- who we could help right now- being ignored? But no- they say just watch the horrors and atrocities over and over again!

[Democracyinkind]

86. Still waiting on pictures from all those dead Iraqis.

Shameless. I don't get why anyone would even watch such shit (be it MSNBC, CNN, Fox... It's all the same.. But it is not news..)

[Cleita]

88. I'm waiting for all the pictures of those live Iraqi and Afghani babies that are being

born with birth defects because of the depleted uranium in our weapons of war. I haven't seen one. I heard about it from Thom Hartmann, but there seems to be no pictures in the MSM.

[Democracyinkind]

89. Exactly. nt

[marew]

92. Me too! nt

[bluestate10]

94. Many pictures have been shown by the media, and guilty Americans have gone to jail.

War is nasty business, innocent people accidentally get injured or killed, that is why war should be the last option. To claim that no dead Iraqis have been shown to the US pubic is dealing in falsehoods, IMO.

[Democracyinkind]

99. To claim that the US media has equally considered Iraqi deaths is

ludicrous. As is the assertion that the US has adequatly dealed with those guilty of the crimes. Now THAT is dealing in falsehoods.

[another_liberal]

120. At best . . .

We have punished a few low-ranking grunts. The men who gave the orders remain untouchable.

[Democracyinkind]

138. Absolutely! nt

[Tx4obama]

87. The clips of the videos shown on CNN were the ones that CONGRESS has been given...

... on DVD to see.

Like it or not - it is NEWS.

[JCMach1]

95. Wrong answer- anyone who pretends to have a political opinion about Syria

should be required to watch...

[delrem]

101. Very interesting research on Iraq/Kuwait war buildup

Thanks to original post on DU (forget whose OP)
This is directly in re. the MSM propaganda blitz at the time.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

In Unreliable Sources, authors Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted that "when a research team from the communications department of the University of Massachusetts surveyed public opinion and correlated it with knowledge of basic facts about US policy in the region, they drew some sobering conclusions: The more television people watched, the fewer facts they knew; and the less people knew in terms of basic facts, the more likely they were to back the Bush administration."

[Cleita]

106. I remember the non-existent babies being tossed from non-existent incubators.

It made for an emotional response with Bush #1 getting full support for freeing Kuwait. Anyone who probed further would have known that the situation of Saddam invading Kuwait was far more complicated. At least Bush #1 wisely did not push to go all the way to Bagdad like that fat general Schwartzsomething or the other wanted him to.

[another_liberal]

110. The pitiful dead children videos have lost their effectiveness for swaying public opinion.

They have been shown so often they are now just camp, and camp in very bad taste at that.

[Cleita]

111. Thank you. You put it more eloquently than I did. n/t

[4bucksagallon]

122. How is that "showing these videos to gin up the war drumming being done is really not cool"

When you say they admit the source is questionable. Makes your post..........questionable.

[Cleita]

124. When you figure out how to write in complete and cognitive sentences expect a response,

not before. I don't know what you are saying.

[mimi85]

123. Obama doesn't have to mess with Syria.

He could just put his feet up on the desk and take up smoking again for the next few years and ride out his term. Why is he into this if he doesn't think something should be done?

[Cleita]

125. Pressure from his Wall Street buddies. War supplying company stocks are slowing down.

Can't have that. It's their money who mostly financed his runs for Presidency. Now he has to pay up on their investments. Or, at least that kind of makes sense to me because nothing else does. If you have a better reason, say it.

[polynomial]

131. The will of the people is peace

One of the other commenters included a video with Thom Hartmann and a Mr. Papantonio deeply describes the money political angle America is confronted with in the Arabs. In the utube video the argument clearly revealed American again as a proxy army for the Arabs. Its all money and oil moreover, Bush and, Cheney as shadow point political party, via Cayman Island free money speech to destroy Obama’s credibility. Money talks and they have that trillion dollar secret derivative market. Oops here comes another bail.

We all have to learn second term politics likely is always on the edge of war and looming economic disaster. Imagine the corporate swindlers of the past gave Obama a broken promise with a squeeze that is much more even after the bail out. Especially more important the reason for the Syria boil over is the American public is going through title fraud which is nothing more than a huge land grab by banks of the one percent right here in America.

I agreement with a few other commentators on the Du, but why in the world is there no talk of medicine, gas masks, food, that floating hospital or loan one of our huge carriers to offer medical treatment doctors nurses or something to include the united nations has doctors social workers.

Offer technology the military can set up cell phone networks within days if not hours. Oh dear God in heaven hear my prayer, Please let our president hear this message President Obama send good will to people of Syria do these things before any bombing. Dam the Arab, Bin Laden family or the Bush Cheney Halliburton Cayman Island secret political creeps. I will pay for the higher price in gas just to see them hang, for we are in hell now so let America hand this hell it back to them.

[Cleita]

134. You are so right about the aid the refugees need. The countries that have opened their

borders to them are overwhelmed and cannot take adequate care of them. Those countries and the social workers and medics working in those camps need so much help in the things you describe. One of those Tomahawk missiles costs one and a half millions dollars. Imagine, the bandages, water, infant formula, etc., etc. one of those missiles would buy.

[cash__whatiwant]

140. yes

Yes. They want us to get behind this soooo badly I've noticed. I'd like to think they're not a left leaning fox news to where their job is to get those on the left to give 100 percent to th e administration. Very disappointing.

[JI7]

141. why not ? they made a big deal out of that Rebel eating the soldier Heart

[DiverDave]

142. Sick, just sick.

They should fire that moron, but they will probably promote him (or her)

[baldguy]

146. You can't handle the truth, or that Obama is trying to stop this atrocity from happeneing again.

[Cleita]

147. I'm all for intervention and stopping the atrocities but not

by military intervention. That won't stop the atrocities but it will accelerate them. There are other ways that aren't even being tried. This is a move by the MIC to stuff their bank accounts with blood money. If you are falling for this ruse, I feel sorry for you.

[baldguy]

148. Right. Let's do nothing more than sent Assad a strongly worded letter. That'll stop him.

[Cleita]

151. Really? Is that all you've got, a strongly worded letter?

No wonder you can't think beyond using bombs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. I actually wish our brave media would show

Videos like these vids more often with proper context. Americans need to see what violence looks like. Of course, all with context.

[Cleita]

153. Also MSNBC continues to say that the authenticity of the videos

are unverified. So why show them unless they are verified? It seems the purpose is just for sensationalism and to evoke an emotional response from the public.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. I have zero issues with them showing them

I know what they are intended to do, as long as they keep harping...they are unverified.

Americans need to see this crap, not the Hollywood version of sanitized violence.

[chelsea0011]

156. So, you would be against the horrors of Vietnam that the media started showing that

turned the people against the war?

[Cleita]

157. Those films were authenticated and shown in context. These aren't.

Actually, AlJazeera shows even more shocking footage of war zones in the ME because people should see the unvarnished horrors of war, but the coverage doesn't take sides and is shown in context of a story. These videos come across obviously as deliberate propaganda to provoke an emotional response.