http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm
there is some interesting stuff on here. Anyone got any thoughts?
there is some interesting stuff on here. Anyone got any thoughts?
Some shocking stories If they're true.
pentagon excluded from FOIA?
thats as far as i got....sorry its late.
thats as far as i got....sorry its late.
Oh the bitter taste of irony...project censored wrote:
#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
and btw, about "#9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall"... coincidence that this fuckhead Wolfowitz was president? Mind you,
BBC wrote:
The departure of Paul Wolfowitz from the presidency of the World Bank was in the end more of a personal than a political matter.
Last edited by oug (2007-05-21 02:25:47)
ƒ³
the context is missing in most of these "stories".
If they are indeed true, how much context do you really need to "US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq"? As I said though, I don't know how true they are.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
the context is missing in most of these "stories".
most of these stories are from 2005, how can they say top of 2007 when the information has already had two years to be looked at.
I think the point is "stories from 2005 that have been kept from the public all this time".
2007 stories haven't really had much time to be suppressed yet.....................
2007 stories haven't really had much time to be suppressed yet.....................
these stories are 2 years old bub, first published two years ago not whats behind the story, but the actual articles themselves. in pretty prominent and well read periodicals. how is it censored if the stories were already published and the public has had a very good time to look em over. they should read top controversy of 2005. if they cant get that right, what else are they not good at?
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-21 09:06:06)
The idea is that while Anna Nicole's baby and Don Imus are all over the media, these stories were published once in magazines. These stories were suppressed by the media.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
these stories are 2 years old bub, first published two years ago not whats behind the story, but the actual articles themselves. in pretty prominent and well read periodicals. how is it censored if the stories were already published and the public has had a very good time to look em over. they should read top controversy of 2005. if they cant get that right, what else are they not good at?
well, if thats what the sheep wanna hear about. could you blame em? they wouldnt be making money if it was only bf2s forum members watching.
aww i was expecting a joke, and then i remembered it was D&ST...
ok numbers 1, 3, 4, and 20 were on the BBC so hardly censored
7 and 13 arn't really a suprise (soldiers get annoyed at insurgents and weedkiller is deadly fucking shock horror!)
11 only suggests a link it doesn't say that the danger is confirmed at all therefore the title and the story are different (and therefore BS)
18 another conspiracist! haha thats hardly censored just no one cares
and well most of them are uninteresting or unsurprising
I vote for this thread to be closed because its just wasting so many people's time when they bother to read it.
ok numbers 1, 3, 4, and 20 were on the BBC so hardly censored
7 and 13 arn't really a suprise (soldiers get annoyed at insurgents and weedkiller is deadly fucking shock horror!)
11 only suggests a link it doesn't say that the danger is confirmed at all therefore the title and the story are different (and therefore BS)
18 another conspiracist! haha thats hardly censored just no one cares
and well most of them are uninteresting or unsurprising
I vote for this thread to be closed because its just wasting so many people's time when they bother to read it.
to be properly defined or told as a story, it should be placed into context.ghettoperson wrote:
If they are indeed true, how much context do you really need to "US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq"? As I said though, I don't know how true they are.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
the context is missing in most of these "stories".
you and i both don't know truths behind the stories, but here is an example of a context that totally changes the meaning of the story.
# 7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
in the context of emergency interrogation techniques to produce urgent information (such as the timely location of US troops held hostage), "US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq"
[*]although it might not/is not always justified, the presence of a context totally changes the meaning of the story. remember, all i was saying is that without placing the story in the correct context, i could not read it objectively.
tomdispatch.com........................rofl
exactly what i was thinking when i read that. this needs to be reiterated.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
to be properly defined or told as a story, it should be placed into context.ghettoperson wrote:
If they are indeed true, how much context do you really need to "US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq"? As I said though, I don't know how true they are.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
the context is missing in most of these "stories".
you and i both don't know truths behind the stories, but here is an example of a context that totally changes the meaning of the story.
# 7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
in the context of emergency interrogation techniques to produce urgent information (such as the timely location of US troops held hostage), "US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq"
[*]although it might not/is not always justified, the presence of a context totally changes the meaning of the story. remember, all i was saying is that without placing the story in the correct context, i could not read it objectively.
The loose change crowd is probably soaking in #18.
So what are you saying mr Einstein? are you saying that the laws of physics don't apply?rdx-fx wrote:
Repackaging pet conspiracy theories as serious news (#18, at least), and putting them in a conveniently easy to digest VH1 top 25 list format... beautiful piece of propaganda work.
Might be some valid points in there, but the site lost most all credibility to me when they start citing 9/11 conspiracies involving 'professors' invoking chapter 2 of Freshman Physics 101 ("it fell at 9.8m/s²... that's not possible due to conservation of momentum").
'Professor' should go back to school - take a damn course in mechanics. Look up "Speed of 'sound' in Metals". Here's another idea - go get some experience with explosives.
Great idea for a website.
Wish there was more substantive content there though.
Think at least the 'sea dead zone' thing was the plot of a bad sci-fi channel show too...
Remember the Maine!
and the slow and gullible crowd is confused as usual.doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
The loose change crowd is probably soaking in #18.
ill beat up anybody who says ill of rdx
OMG they're gonna st341 the InT3rn4ts!!11!