War made easy

[bush_cheney2004]

There was a massive shortage of coverage, actually. It's not only that Canadians don't give a damn (or, more accurately, are predisposed to look away at their own nation's crimes)--it's that very little information was published. Astonishingly little. Very, very, very few people are aware of this AT ALL. And when they are, they have usually imbibed the conventiuonal pieties: "We ignored the problem; didn't do enough"...and other, similar deceptions.

The historical record challenges your emotional perception of what did or did not happen for "coverage". That it be your pet project does not give rise to pecial treatment by the rest of the world with a myriad of other issues.

Also, your petulance against Canada is showing; Americans plainly have no more interest in or knowledge of the matter.

Yet "Anericans" gave the "green light", eh? My petulance against Canada is by design in the face of so many "goody-two-shoes" admonitions of the United States. I specialize in rubbing Canadian noses in their own shyte.

[bloodyminded]

The historical record challenges your emotional perception of what did or did not happen for "coverage". That it be your pet project does not give rise to pecial treatment by the rest of the world with a myriad of other issues.

You mnake the claim, you provide the evidence. I can state with certainty (having looked extensively into this as well as comparing news coverage with other situations) that you have no clue--none at all--about the "historical record" on this matter.

But go ahead: prove me wrong. If the coverage was so extensive, you should be able to find multiple sources, occurring at the time, with very little effort.

Yet "Anericans" gave the "green light", eh? My petulance against Canada is by design in the face of so many "goody-two-shoes" admonitions of the United States. I specialize in rubbing Canadian noses in their own shyte.

Sure, and i have no problem with your pointing out Canadian hypocrisy. I'm not the sort of patriot who keeps my entire sense of personal worht tied up in a particular geopolitical entity.

But when you pretend it is Canadian hypocrisy alone, and not American every bit as much (which it demonstrably is), then you're not doing anyhting honest: it's just amusingly crude nationalistic masturbation at that point. The very thing you pretend (falsely) to be exposing for its own sake.

[M.Dancer]

For what was a small regional conflict, there were plenty of articles.

This site says there were 15 in 1989 in Canadian newspapers, (it omits TV news) dropping off from the previous year.

http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1991/03/03/0015.html

Globe qand Mail online archives only go back to 2000....but since then, no shortage.

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000108.UINDON/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000111.UMOLUM/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000201.UINDON/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000202.UREPOM-9/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000204.UREPOM-10/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000212.URAMON/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000214.UREPON-2/TPStory/?query=east+timor

and 200 more up to 2002

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/templates/hub?hub=Search&searchType=Advanced&searchText=east+timor&searchDateType=searchDateRange&searchDatePreset=all&from_date=20000101&to_date=20021222&sortType=last&start_row=21&start_row_offset1=0&num_rows=10

[Michael Hardner]

There was no shortage ov coverage....it's just that most Canadians didn't give a damn about it or their own nation's complicity in the matter.

I don't remember coverage of this.

She also gave Denmark the "green light" to invade Canada...so they did.

Hmmmmmmm.... okaaaaay.

[M.Dancer]

Toronro Star archives

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=east+timor&type=current&sortby=CHRON&datetype=6&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1985&tomonth=12&today=22&toyear=1999&By=&Title=&publications=ALL

1084 articles referencing east timor from 1985 to 1999

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't remember coverage of this.

Yet you remember Chomsky? Better get your story straight, as Chomsky had no problem citing references in popular media:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm

Hmmmmmmm.... okaaaaay.

In addition, I have given Mexico the "wink-wink green light" to invade Haiti.

[bush_cheney2004]

You mnake the claim, you provide the evidence. I can state with certainty (having looked extensively into this as well as comparing news coverage with other situations) that you have no clue--none at all--about the "historical record" on this matter.

You are a newbie here with no clue about my understanding of the matter. Your certainty has already been exposed as a myth on this and other matters.

But go ahead: prove me wrong. If the coverage was so extensive, you should be able to find multiple sources, occurring at the time, with very little effort.

Other members and I already have. Now you can retreat with another "never mind".

Sure, and i have no problem with your pointing out Canadian hypocrisy. I'm not the sort of patriot who keeps my entire sense of personal worht tied up in a particular geopolitical entity.

As another member has stated, it matters not whether you have a problem or not. Just play the game.

But when you pretend it is Canadian hypocrisy alone, and not American every bit as much (which it demonstrably is), then you're not doing anyhting honest: it's just amusingly crude nationalistic masturbation at that point. The very thing you pretend (falsely) to be exposing for its own sake.

Again...you are a rookie here with zero understanding of my masturbation methods. I revel in American exceptionalism in the many forms it takes, and don't mind a few Canadian barnacles enjoying the ride in exchange for natural resources.

[bloodyminded]

For what was a small regional conflict, there were plenty of articles.

This site says there were 15 in 1989 in Canadian newspapers, (it omits TV news) dropping off from the previous year.

http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1991/03/03/0015.html

Globe qand Mail online archives only go back to 2000....but since then, no shortage.

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000108.UINDON/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000111.UMOLUM/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000201.UINDON/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000202.UREPOM-9/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000204.UREPOM-10/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000212.URAMON/TPStory/?query=east+timor

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20000214.UREPON-2/TPStory/?query=east+timor

and 200 more up to 2002

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/templates/hub?hub=Search&searchType=Advanced&searchText=east+timor&searchDateType=searchDateRange&searchDatePreset=all&from_date=20000101&to_date=20021222&sortType=last&start_row=21&start_row_offset1=0&num_rows=10

The "small conflict" ranks among the handful of worst mass slaughters in the post-war era.

And there was very little coverage. I do appreciate your making the effort here--I really do. But if anything, it shows the opposite of your claim.

First of all, most of this occurs after the situation was over; I asked specifically for timely information.

Second, there is close to a blackout on reporting the crucial, absolutely crucial, Western support for the genocide. In your links, I noticed a handful of pieces reporting thi9ngs such as "arms shipments to human rights violaters," which is better than nothing; but few, if any, stories focussed specifically on the fact that the genocide was made possible with the help (and knowledge) of Western leaders.

Your link also points out the huge amount of coverage given to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by comparison. Indeed, these media coverage comparisons were one of my main points. And Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was nothing in comparison. In fact, it's sick to comnpare the two, since Indonesia's treatment of the East Timorese (with our willing help) was so catastrophically worse.

Also, we can look at media coverage of Serbian crimes in 1999--compared to the (simultaneous, but worse) Indonesian crimes of the same period.

[maple_leafs182]

I'm open minded enough to open the video, so your accusation is off base. I also gave your videos ten minutes of my time so far, which is almost equal to 1/2 the entire time I spend responding to threads in the morning.

K, when i said everyone is closed minded, I meant most people...sorry. You may not be, I really don't know you.

Let me restate: Significant progress has been made on the problem of world hunger since 1970. For you to expect all hunger to have been solved within 40 years is completely unrealistic. If world leaders weren't concerned about poverty, how could they have made as much progress as they have ?

Poverty doesn't have to even exist. 80% of the earths population lives on less then $10 a day...80%.

40 years is not unrealistic at all, all it is is a choice between love and fear.

The only thing stopping us from solving poverty is money. Fuck money. Our current monetary system is broken.

Central bankers have to much power, we need to take the power back.

We could solve pollution and other problems too if we wanted to. We allow many corporations to pollute, why?

This is not the pinnacle of human civilization, we can live a lot better if we choose to.(love or fear)

Your cheap propaganda videos are made for suckers who are willing to support these guys in their books and speaking engagements. The fact that they talk about closed-minded sheeple is a joke on those of you who blindly accept their groundless arguments and shell out money to keep these liars going.

I've never donated money to these people.

If you want propaganda, watch mainstream media. They induce fear into us on a regular bases.

The last video you posted was ostensibly about the WTC7 collapse, yet it was a humanities professor who gabbed on and on about lies for a significant portion of the film, without any scientific backing to his accusations. I didn't finish the film, not because I'm closed-minded but because I value my time somewhat.

If you continued to read my posts in that topic I admitted I was wrong. Ya, i'm not afraid to admit I was wrong.

Even if the towers fell naturally, it doesn't prove the government wasn't involved.

[bloodyminded]

You are a newbie here with no clue about my understanding of the matter. Your certainty has already been exposed as a myth on this and other matters.

No. I was quite profoundly mistaken on one matter, and admitted it. Why do you keep ignoring that crucial component? Because it doesn't fit into your template.

Other members and I already have. Now you can retreat with another "never mind".

no, you guys have provided media sources, but have failed to explain the monumental disparity between reports on Western-supported genocide compared to, for example, the far lesser Serbian crimes, which flooded our media (just as we were describing our humanitarian nobility). I don't think you quite understand news media.

As another member has stated, it matters not whether you have a problem or not. Just play the game.

I am playing. And i am mocking the frightened little patriots, just as they mock back. So there's no problem there.

Again...you are a rookie here with zero understanding of my masturbation methods. I revel in American exceptionalism in the many forms it takes, and don't mind a few Canadian barnacles enjoying the ride in exchange for natural resources.

Yeah, you can race your Hummer up through the North, killing immigrants as you go, stopping only at a 7-11 along the way to buy some scat porn.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

B_C and Morris,

I think Chomsky was pointing out the lack of coverage. I'm trying to look at the Toronto Star archive but the link doesn't show anything after page 1. Although it looks like there was an average of 1 or 2 articles a week over that time, I don't remember hearing about it. Of course, I wasn't as interested in global politics then, and it was before the web.

Do you remember hearing about East Timor, prior to Chomsky ?

[M.Dancer]

The "small conflict" ranks among the handful of worst mass slaughters in the post-war era.

It was. Hence 200 articles from 2000(the date their archives start) to 2002...and over a thousand in the Star databease from 1985 to 1999. Never the less, it was still a small regional conflict. Aside from humanitarian reasons, what other reason would there be for us to be involved?

And there was very little coverage. I do appreciate your making the effort here--I really do. But if anything, it shows the opposite of your claim.

You just aren't happy with how much. That is just a subjective claim that in all probability won't be satistfied unles it was all timor, all the time.

First of all, most of this occurs after the situation was over; I asked specifically for timely information.

The intraweb is limited to it's creation date.

Second, there is close to a blackout on reporting the crucial, absolutely crucial, Western support for the genocide. In your links, I noticed a handful of pieces reporting thi9ngs such as "arms shipments to human rights violaters," which is better than nothing; but few, if any, stories focussed specifically on the fact that the genocide was made possible with the help (and knowledge) of Western leaders.

I notice you have blacked out support from Portugal for the Timor rebels. At least the articles I found explicitelt mention arms sales, hence negating your point.

Your link also points out the huge amount of coverage given to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by comparison. Indeed, these media coverage comparisons were one of my main points. And Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was nothing in comparison.

Correct, it was more important.

In fact, it's sick to comnpare the two, since Indonesia's treatment of the East Timorese (with our willing help) was so catastrophically worse.

To who?

Also, we can look at media coverage of Serbian crimes in 1999--compared to the (simultaneous, but worse) Indonesian crimes of the same period.

We could. One was a regional conflict in an area with a history of small conflicts becoming much worse...trhe other in a backwater with little impact to us.

Even so, it was in Australian news regularly. And there is a selfish reason for that.

[bloodyminded]

B_C and Morris,

I think Chomsky was pointing out the lack of coverage. I'm trying to look at the Toronto Star archive but the link doesn't show anything after page 1. Although it looks like there was an average of 1 or 2 articles a week over that time, I don't remember hearing about it. Of course, I wasn't as interested in global politics then, and it was before the web.

Do you remember hearing about East Timor, prior to Chomsky ?

chomsky WAS pointing out the lack of coverage, and has pointed it out consistently and thoroughly.

These sources provided aren't even an honest response, if I may be frank. Most of them have little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand; and of those that do, only a tiny handful report in any way the seriousness of the situation, and the fact of the Western nations' direct complicity.

Those links are meant to be "proof" by carpet-bombing. It doesn't fly.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

B_C and Morris,

web.

Do you remember hearing about East Timor, prior to Chomsky ?

I try to avoid Chomsky because he is out to lunch when it comes to media. And yes I remember coverage and wondering, where's west timor?

[Michael Hardner]

K, when i said everyone is closed minded, I meant most people...sorry. You may not be, I really don't know you.

Thanks.

Poverty doesn't have to even exist. 80% of the earths population lives on less then $10 a day...80%.

40 years is not unrealistic at all, all it is is a choice between love and fear.

The only thing stopping us from solving poverty is money. Fuck money. Our current monetary system is broken.

Central bankers have to much power, we need to take the power back.

There have been two basic models of wealth distribution used over the past hundred years - central ownership and planning, and individual ownership, i.e. capitalism. Although on paper it seems easy to solve poverty, Communism was the system more concerned with evening out distribution and it failed.

What you're saying is beautiful poetry, but it's another thing to initiate policy. John Lennon spoke about peace, and as popular as he was, and as successful as his message was I'd say we're in a similar position with peace as well.

We could solve pollution and other problems too if we wanted to. We allow many corporations to pollute, why? This is not the pinnacle of human civilization, we can live a lot better if we choose to.(love or fear)

Communism is your best bet, but then again Communist countries had poor environmental records too. Open societies could hold their corporations up to scrutiny, but those corporations influenced policy to get out of compliance.

Suggest a better system.

I've never donated money to these people.

If you want propaganda, watch mainstream media. They induce fear into us on a regular bases.

What are these videos but fear mongering, propaganda fueled exercises in emotionality ?

If you continued to read my posts in that topic I admitted I was wrong. Ya, i'm not afraid to admit I was wrong.

Good for you. My arguments always improve after I've made a mistake and corrected it.

Even if the towers fell naturally, it doesn't prove the government wasn't involved.

There's enough evil in the world already, even without the conspiracy kind. Evil comes from laziness, lack of empathy, and misunderstanding and mistrust. Mistrust, as in the kind of mistrust you display for the governments of the west.

[Michael Hardner]

chomsky WAS pointing out the lack of coverage, and has pointed it out consistently and thoroughly.

These sources provided aren't even an honest response, if I may be frank. Most of them have little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand; and of those that do, only a tiny handful report in any way the seriousness of the situation, and the fact of the Western nations' direct complicity.

Those links are meant to be "proof" by carpet-bombing. It doesn't fly.

The links did point out that Canada was actively supporting a regime guilty of human rights abuses, and also support the idea that we looked the other way so I suggest you move on to your next point.

[Michael Hardner]

I try to avoid Chomsky because he is out to lunch when it comes to media. And yes I remember coverage and wondering, where's west timor?

Maybe that's why you didn't march down University Avenue in protest, then.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe that's why you didn't march down University Avenue in protest, then.

There were no protests. The proof is that the media didn't cover it so no one knew about it. Hence if no one knew, there could be no protests.

These argumenst about the media have at their core a few common myths.

1) The media is all knowing. If they don't cover something, they are covering up something.

2) Newspapers could print 1000 page editions cover every but of news. If they don't cover the bit of news of interst to one particular group, they are covering up something.

3) If the newspapers do cover something, they aren't covering it enough.

4) No other news itemn is as important as the news that a particular groups wants to see. The stock market crashing pales incomparison to a palestinian unable to find work.

5)Newspapers are unitersted in covering news that may offend some nebulous corporate interest, especially ones that do not advertise in newspapers but are involved in a story that is of interest to some particular group.

I've heard it all over the 25 years in the media.

Edited December 22, 2009 by M.Dancer

[bloodyminded]

The links did point out that Canada was actively supporting a regime guilty of human rights abuses, and also support the idea that we looked the other way so I suggest you move on to your next point.

Yeah, a handful of links. My entire point was an insufficient amount of coverage, in direct comparison to heavy coverage about atrocities of official enemies.

In other words: i make a point; the point is rebutted; I consider the rebuttal insufficient (and, in fact, predicted exactly how it would play out).

[M.Dancer]

In other words: i make a point; the point is rebutted; I consider the rebuttal insufficient (and, in fact, predicted exactly how it would play out).

see myth #3

[bloodyminded]

see myth #3

This could be correct in any number of scenarios. But let's consider the context in THIS case:

At the precise moment when the news media was publishing endlessly about Serbian atrocities, they were mostly ignoring the attempted genocide of people, who were being massacred with our weapons, and with the knowledge of our officials, even as they continued to supply the weapons.

We're not talking about a small number, either; Serbia was heaven in comparison. There is no comparison, in fact.

There was no media conspiracy, however; first of all, the media relies (too heavily) on government spokespeople, so said spokespeaople weren't too likely to point out Western collusion in genocide; second, the news media are mostly establishment organs that take a view friendly to powerful interests.

they don't always do so, of course. If they did, we'd all KNOW they were propaganda organs.

As it stands, you can say, with a straight face, that there's nothing altogether wrong with our news media largely ignoring a genocide intentionally armed by Western democracies, led by the United States.

At the precise same time that newsmen were editorializing gleefully about the West's fight against genocide.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...Do you remember hearing about East Timor, prior to Chomsky ?

Yes....I'm obviously no fan of Chomsky. I remember East Timor as just one of many low grade human interest stories offered up before weather and sports. Many more suffering millions in SubSaharan Africa received even "less" coverage if that be the main point of contention.

[M.Dancer]

At the precise moment when the news media was publishing endlessly about Serbian atrocities, they were mostly ignoring the attempted genocide of people, who were being massacred with our weapons, and with the nowledge of our officials, even as they continued to supply the weapons.

See myth #4

Serbia is more important to us than than East Timor. As well, since in the "few" links I did provide, it should we were selling weapons to Indonesia...so that fails.

We're not talking about a small number, either; Serbia was heaven in comparison.

Irrelevant

As it stands, you can say, with a straight face, that there's nothing altogether wrong with our news media largely ignoring a genocide intentionally armed by Western democracies, led by the United States.

You mean largely ignored except for the 1000s of articles...

myth 3

[bloodyminded]

Yes....I'm obviously no fan of Chomsky. I remember East Timor as just one of many low grade human interest stories offered up before weather and sports. Many more suffering millions in SubSaharan Africa received even "less" coverage if that be the main point of contention.

Yes, but our leaders were not directly funding an effort to MAKE them starve. So the difference is profound.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....As it stands, you can say, with a straight face, that there's nothing altogether wrong with our news media largely ignoring a genocide intentionally armed by Western democracies, led by the United States.

Of course.....Canada and the USA were built on "genocide". So what's your problem?