EPTOn December 14 2010 12:20 Kezzer wrote:
How do we know this isn't the U.S. government planting and faking this?
Because we read before posting.How do we know this isn't the U.S. government planting and faking this?
Wikileaks: Yellowcake Uranium in Iraq - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:29 Redmark wrote: \I'm not informed on the situation, but if there's anything I've learned I'm taking anyone who says 'mainstream media' with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm one part of the hivemind, but I'd rather see a 'mainstream media' report on this. 1) Mainstream media thrives off profits, thus whatever story will net them the most audience--be it a story in the St. Louis post dispatch about one doctor who had a deviant sexual desire to rub people who didn't desire it, and did so twice, makes front page. Think about the message in that. "Don't trust doctors." Front page, full color picture. When there are other world events and stuff like this going on, seriously, they write a story throwing shame onto the doctor oversight committee and a particular doctor. Fucking agenda-setting waste of social filler I'm a major in communication so I try to be intensely aware of all the facets which go into every message. I suggest you break away from habit and go cold turkey on mainstream media. They've put tons of money into making it seem like a friendly relatable community, I used to be in the habit of watching "The Today Show" every morning. Amusing, but ultimately a huge waste of my time. Read around and seriously reconsider.. 1.5) When Julian Assange was brought in for questioning on allegations of rape, the only thing the mainstream US media focused on was "Is Julian Assange a rapist?" Now check out that other wikileaks thread again. The actual story going on here is that there's an information control war going on and the internet is the battleground. 1.5 pt 2) The Airlines patdown thing. It really didn't fucking matter, but the media system fed back on itself and made a huge non-issue seem like a huge issue. 2) Wikileaks has no obligation to entertain, only an obligation to the truth. Their method is "scientific journalism" which means they'll analyze an article, but then link you back to their sources so you can make your own critical analysis. Believe me, on the scale and profile its at this is COMPLETELY different than anything else in history and this transparency is a huge deal. When the mainstream can no longer set the agenda for public discourse, and the public is given the resources to make their own conclusions...fuck you miley. | ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
On December 14 2010 12:38 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote: Wait, so how credible is wikileaks? rapist! rapist! | ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
I'm a major in communication so I try to be intensely aware of all the facets which go into every message. I suggest you break away from habit and go cold turkey on mainstream media. They've put tons of money into making it seem like a friendly relatable community, I used to be in the habit of watching "The Today Show" every morning. Amusing, but ultimately a huge waste of my time. Read around and seriously reconsider.. Thing is, there is no real reliable source of information. When it comes down to it, I'd still trust the big newspapers/news services over something like the Washington Examiner (wikipedia page is lols). At least they come under more scrutiny, so if there are false facts it'd probably be known pretty quickly. I don't know if you're saying that alternative news sources are more reliable than mainstream ones, but if you are I guess you have more discerning eyes than mine. | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:27 omfghi2u2 wrote: That is exactly what I was thinking. But it makes me wonder, if the US goes out of its way this much to jail Assenge, why not go out of its way to get credibility and inform the world that Iraq HAD wmd's? After the whole incident, who would have believed them? That's my thought, anyway. It is hard to argue that you are right when everyone is convinced that you are wrong. | ||
|
BROotogy
Eritrea149 Posts
| ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
EDIT: While I'm here, Julian Assange is egomaniacal, degenerate scum, and I hope he suffers for all the people he's condemned to death by leaking those state department documents. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
hmm, snopes from 2 years ago says hi | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On December 14 2010 11:36 Romantic wrote: Apparently exports are irrelevant too. Obviously if you were sitting on a ton of oil as your only export you would want to sell as much of it as you could. It would be far cheaper for any middle eastern country to simply use the oil they produce to generate power, rather than go through building nuclear technology for energy purposes. MUCH cheaper. Not only do they not have uranium ore, which would make their energy supply volitile (political and market factors) but they would have to engage in the massive costs of figuring out how to build nuclear technology (decades of R&D) and then build the plants (so much more expensive than any other sort of plant). It just doesn't make economic sense. And if you think the 3rd world gives half a rats ass about global warming when they could be seeing enhanced economic growth and standard of living increases, you're dreaming. | ||
|
Starfox
Austria699 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On December 14 2010 13:26 Starfox wrote: nice trick to get alot of clicks on your website atm, bringing up a fuckold story and making it sound like it has anything to do with current cables, you so tricky larry elder Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: And it doesn't have crap to do with the cables but the older leaks. This is just affirming something from an somewhat outside source instead of directly from the state. Technically it's still has to do with wikileaks. | ||
|
Viciousvx
United States83 Posts
I was almost shocked as to how many people here were too enthusiastic to throw away common sense and believe George bush again Knowledge of history is a very important thing...especially when it hasn't even been 10 years.... and to add siomething simpler, you don't even need to history that well, even remembering that the gov't forged documents to the Congress...unbelievable. | ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
| ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
| ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
| ||
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
| ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
This is NOT the same yellow-cake that the Bush administration was going after. This was not provided by Africa, it was provided by the Soviet Union before the 1980s. It was not weapons-grade even when the U.S bombed the facilities during 1991. This is old news, and this does not vindicate Bush because there is still no evidence that weapons-grade uranium was ever obtained from Africa. Misleading bullshit. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
| ||
