Are "Children" the only civilian deaths?

[Chuckiechan]

I'm getting to the point that when I see the word "children" killed by US, etc. I blow off the article as propaganda...Who are these parents that can run away from harm and leave their children? I was watching a bunch on anquished Iraqi men on TV at some kind of funeral. They were all carrying on yelling, crying, etc. EXCEPT their eyes were dry! Look for tears in these video clips! Are we being had?

Bill Clinton used to try to tug at our heart strings by saying everything was for "the children". Has he ruined a perfectly good sound bite?

[Cumhail]

post deleted Sorry, but if you want to spew this kind of hate you will have to do it on another fourm.
Another post like this and it will be the last.
I suggest you read our FAQs.

You will not behave in an abusive or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, or attack anyone, whether implied or expressed. This is strictly enforced.

surreal
Moderator

[Centurion]

edit

[Cumhail]

Actually, I was merely following the original poster's apparent logic to its logical (or, more accurately, illogical) ends. He seems to be implying one or more of the following:

- Reports of children dying are nothing more than propoganda, which seems odd in light of the fact that at least some of the reports are coming in through the American press.

- Iraqis don't care about the lives of their children, and so they leave them behind and then don't even cry at their funerals. This demonization of the enemy as being inhuman is commonly done in wartime; and it is itself a form of 'propoganda.'

- Portraying "the enemy" as human and demonstrating remorse about the suffering of children should not be done; and it's nothing more than a liberal tactic employed by the likes of Bill Clinton.

Posts can be hateful, even if they're not rabid in how they make their points. I'm glad you found the content of my post unacceptable (and I won't post along those lines again... I'll follow the rules). But it seems that the same point, made in a cooler and more calculated way, would have been deemed acceptable by the rules of this forum... and I guess I just don't see much of a difference.

My apologies, in any case, for bending/breaking any rules in illustrating my point... I shan't do so again.

Cumhail

[Epidemic]

I had not noticed the propagandic nature of the use of the word children.

I do on the flip side think that it is a proper analysis. The word children does seem to head and be repeated through out anti-war propaganda pieces.

interesting.

[Chuckiechan]

Sorry to cause such a stir. My point being is that the media, and the Iraqi's know that the USA is hyper - sensitive to deaths of civilians, particularly children. I have seen headlines like "Children killed at checkpoint by Marines" when in fact four of the seven were adults as described in the text of the story. The word "Children" could be substituted for "Civilians" in an emotion-free headline.

As far as the "dry eyes" comment, you be the judge. Watch the video clips coming from Iraqi TV and Al Jezerra. Certainly not all funerals are fake and yes eyes do truly get "wet". But you must be willing to recognize that there is another front to this war, which for some people is having the desired effect of increasing hatred of the US abroad and reducing support here at home. These clips are clearly designed to inflame people in the propaganda war to try to get a "win" for Saddam through political means since he has no chance militarily and is circling the drain as we speak.

I won't even comment on Clinton, except to highlight his ineptitude in Somalia that has let to the gross miscalculation of terrorists that we will turn cheek and go home when we take losses.

Originally posted by Cumhail


Posts can be hateful, even if they're not rabid in how they make their points. I'm glad you found the content of my post unacceptable (and I won't post along those lines again... I'll follow the rules). But it seems that the same point, made in a cooler and more calculated way, would have been deemed acceptable by the rules of this forum... and I guess I just don't see much of a difference.

My apologies, in any case, for bending/breaking any rules in illustrating my point... I shan't do so again.

You are absolutely correct. I apologize for loosing my cool.

surreal

[crouse]

I don't think you lost your cool Surreal

Anyway, have you ever notice how unpopular political ideas can be pushed by people "because of the children" "for the childrens sake"? The media seems to me to be following this same principle. They know 70+% of americans are for the war. Since alot of the media is "pro democratic" they will follow the normal stratgey of the democratic party. And as previously posted, BC was king of using the "for the children" card.

[edit]Okay politicians in GENERAL... not just democrats do this....... thought I'd better clear that up before I got flamed [end edit]


There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

— President James Madison (1751-1836).


^^^Think....... new laws.... for the childrens sake.......


.
.

I think Chuckiechan has a valid point. The "journalistic" viewpoint is not the impartial viewpoint that one SHOULD expect from the news. Left or Right wing media. Both sides seem to have "agendas" and hardly ever do we get to see "impartial news coverage".

[Epidemic]

the reason I started watching fox and listening to talk radio is not so much the fact that ABC,NBC,CNN... report completely biased. It was more the fact that they do not report many of the stories which do not meet the agenda.

I was drowning in a sea of crud and all media outlets seemed to spew the same stories until Bob Grant, Rush and now fox hit the air. Now i can see half the news on CNN and Half on Fox and come up with a whole picture.