VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:37:17 10/07/04 Thu
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Biased media?
In reply to: UBFree 's message, "Re: Public opinion and the media" on 10:53:29 10/07/04 Thu

Wow! I didn't know the media in Europe or Germany was so biased in one direction. This explains alot! In America the left and right have carved out territory.

I do not see the problem of "bias" as you see it.
The German Media have the constitutional right of independent reports, whereas you can clearly know that in America, the media is quite censored.

Actually, of course every single human being has a bias of some form or another, but you need to see that Germany is definitely not contra-America, yet since WW2, the majority of Germans abhor war and wouldn't resort to war unless there really was NO alternative.
The USA have initiated many military strikes against foreign countries even against the decision of the United Nations, something which alone a horrible concept to the average German, including me.
Being a Christian, I abhor the idea of war even more - Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, and even that we may lose our lives in following Him, but He never suggested that we should kill anyone, especially not large-scale.

The average U.S. citizen, on the other hand, does not consider war as serious as they are used to it.
Plus, war never happened in your home. You haven't lost your lifetime's accomplishment (your house, your property, your family) due to a single bomb.
Okay, 9/11 was was an incident where people lost relatives, I admit. But rarely an entire family line got wiped out.
In wars, this is everyday business. It happens all the time and is usually handled as "collateral damage".

Have you ever seen a baby with the marks of war? Have you seen the nearly 6 million Vietnamese who suffer cancer because of the aftermaths of Agent Orange? Have you seen the children with only one leg or no legs at all, because they "found" a mine from a war 30 years ago?
Those are just some examples of the tragedies of war.
9/11 eradicated a few ten thousand. Please forgive me if I use the word "few", but for instance in the Vietnam War, many hundred thousand of innocent people found death in the aftermath (!) of war, at the hands of people who refuse even up to now to be held accountable for these actions and who would even deny they have anything to do with that. But probably every second cancer death in that country is a consequence of war.

As such, war is horrible.
Some philosopher said: "In a war, there is no winners. There is only a great loser and a lesser loser."
War is not a solution. Especially not in days where you can kill without even needing to be on the same continent as your target.

It's so easy to say "a war can solve that problem" when YOU are not the person who will lose everything, and who might even see their great-grandchildren get born with a malfunctioning physical stature.
What the aftermath of war does to a country is easily neglected.

But according to what kind of information is available in Europe, the Iraq war was really staged.

I have one question for you: if Saddam Hussein really was the problem, why did America not support the revolution in Iraq right after the Kuwait incident? At that time, many thousand people thought that America would help them get rid of Saddam, so they seized their opportunity and demonstrated against Hussein. America refused to aid these people in any way. They were all killed.
And this is why no Iraqi dared to stand up against Saddam when America put a bounty on his head: they were too afraid that America would pull out like they did last time. And most of those who HAD the will and the power - were dead already. This should also be noted in America's glorious dealings with Saddam.

And not to say that I consider Saddam as an acceptible leader for a country, there is one philosophical question: "If you use the methods of your enemies, what differentiates you from them?"
Abu Ghraib should ring a bell.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.