General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
However it should be noted that Islamic media does not report on this for reasons exactly like the ones that resulted in western media seldom reporting on abuses from western forces. I'm thinking of the secret prisons, renditions, spec ops and the like. For example, in the nineties Clinton continued to bomb Iraqi facilities on a regular basis, but American media rarely covered it at all. edit: I'm completely unfamiliar with these events; I just don't see why the USAF bombing the Iraqi Army would have been abuse... |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
Traianvs said that they were "rarely" covered. He never said they were a secret or anything. That would be because the rarely, not regularly, occured. Which means they were reported exactly how they should have been.
You can pretend all you want, but to say bombing Iraq at inconsistant times 2-3 times a year (usually not even that) and only after their provovation constitutes "regularly" is pure farce. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
The replies are detracting attention from the main point Oerdin was making, being the coverage in islamic media.
How were those 'abuses'? For example the secret prison near Szymany in Poland has come in the press recently, but the big influential channels prefer not to headline it. As always information is available but you simply have to search to get it. The same thing applies, albeit to a lesser degree, to arabic media coverage. I think that was more relevant to the point, rather than defining what regularly means. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|