*DAMN R6 Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3726744.stm

God damn it.

I thought he would make it, I really did.

Has anyone heard anything more about this? its 4:00am and ive just got home from work....

american CNN (not reliable) and french newspaper Le Monde (much more reliable) have the story. Apparently, the british hostage is dead.

You stupid fuck.  CNN says he is dead so that isn't reliable information?[/size]

hum, learn to read a post before yelling  :o

I did read it.  And I read it again.  You say very plainly that CNN is not reliable.[/size]

and you deny it ?

I don't think any news media is completely accurate.  They all put a spin on things to sway public opinion.  And to say that some French media source is any more reliable than an American media source is just bullshit.  They all spin things to fit what they want their readers/watchers to see/hear.[/size]

Well...BBC is more reliable a news source than any of the US news channels. Corporate media is generally inferior to publicly funded media because they have to worry about ratings in order to get advertising dollars. I generally think something like Reuters or AP would be more reliable than a reporter for a specific newspaper which too has to get advertising money rather than just wire fees. The question of the effect of capitalism forces and competition on media is an important one.

Exactly Bondo.  BBC, Routers, AP ...  

Alas though it seems Mr Biggly is indeed dead. He was Beheaded, held down, his throat cut and head severed. My thoughts to his family, they have been through a horrilbe nightmare over the weeks, especially his mother who has been addmitted several times to hosptial. It must have been horrific to see your son like that, begging for his life.


ps. what do you consider to be a good News source then Ghostsniper? Fox News?

Not hardly.  All three are corrupt, but I don't know why I even waste my time saying it, because you will not believe it even if I showed you cold hard proof.[/size]


Not really.  I don't believe there is any good news source anywhere in the world.  They are all corrupt, they are all "spin" doctors who say everything in a way to sway opinion, and they ALL let you hear only the news they want you to hear.  I personally get my news from people in the know, whenever possible.  I have friends from my military service who are now in all parts of the U.S. Government, from the State Department to the Dept of Homeland Security, including all of our intelligence services and all of our branches of the military.  So when something happens, I call on one of them to get the real story.  I certainly wouldn't believe anything the BBC said.[/size]

Yes... So you keep telling us again and again... The fact you believe they don't "spin" the information is a little bizare though.


I'll take the double extra large portion of cold hard proof please, well done with french fries and a pint of Kronenburg.

Because they are very good friends of mine.  I like hearing news like "We killed 3 terrorists today, but some civilians were in the area and got killed by accident" instead of the same thing reported like this: "George Bush screwed up again in Iraq today, allowing soldiers to murder innocent civilians while claiming to be chasing down terrorists..."

Now tell me that shit doesn't happen and I'll kiss your British ass.[/size]


It wouldn't matter to you if I did produce some (which I don't have, by the way...I can't believe the dripping sarcasm of my post was lost on a British Man).  And what the hell is Kronenburg?[/size]

Take a budweiser, add taste, and you get a Kronenbourg.

BFG, the americans are trying to get back Falluja, once they do that, there is a good chance they get a hold on the Zarcaoui hostage beheader

Ah, thanks.  I don't drink beer....it all tastes bad to me.[/size]

Is that what the call them? Im not flaming or anything just interested. Do they call them insurgents, iraqi resistance, Supporters of Saddamn Hussain, Al-Quieda Supporters, terrorists...... ??

I just find it very very interesting that they refer to these people as terrorists.

They do call them terrorists.  Anyone who uses violence and murder to try to get their way is a terrorist.[/size]

Isn't that what the US is using in the war on terror and the War in Iraq?

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, if the US kills civilians in killing insurgents, the killing of civilians becomes the more newsworthy aspect because it isn't acceptable to kill them just to kill the bad guys.

terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

What... like bush instilling fear into americans about being attacked, using Christianity (good verus evil, god is on our side, this is a crusade against evil etc) as a cover......

Guys, lets keep this from becoming an argument about news source reliability, or what you think we should call the insurgents in Iraq.  Show a little respect to this guy and his family and save this fight for another thread.

-Lone

ouch !