Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#41

Post by berntb »

mafribe wrote: post #40
berntb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Some contradiction right there. So just because someone is politically/religiously extreme they are violent? >> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years 2 minutes with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_te... "The Ottoman Turks and Safavids fought over the fertile plains of Iraq for more than 150 years" (But I understand -- it was _really_ Iranian to start with. Ira…

2 minutes with Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious, e.g. "Bahraini security forces [...] arrested a number of suspects linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards" Oh yes, Bahraini security forces, that fountain of truth, and model of just democracy.

>> Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious

So....

Are you claiming that the content of Wikipedia is a USA conspiracy or a Jewish one? Or both?

(Edit: I really have seen people make those conspiracy claims, it is not totally a joke. They also didn't have any references, unlike wikipedia.)

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#42

Post by mafribe »

berntb wrote: post #41
mafribe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 minutes with Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious, e.g. "Bahraini security forces [...] arrested a number of suspects linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards" Oh yes, Bahraini security forces, that fountain of truth, and model of just democracy.

>> Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious So.... Are you claiming that the content of Wikipedia is a USA conspiracy or a Jewish one? Or both? (Edit: I really have seen people make those conspiracy claims, it is not totally a joke. They also didn't have any references, unlike wikipedia.)

Neither the Bahraini security forces nor Wikipedia is a credible source. As a Wikipedia editor I've seen enough edit wars.

It is also well documented that all sides in the middle eastern conflicts invest heavily in propaganda. Here is but one example: The U.S. military payed over $540 millions to the British public relation firm Bell Pottinger [2] to create 'al-Qaeda' videos [2]. $540M buys you a lot of willing propagandeers. Are you being paid, or are you working for free?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger

[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-pa...

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#43

Post by berntb »

mafribe wrote: post #42
berntb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious So.... Are you claiming that the content of Wikipedia is a USA conspiracy or a Jewish one? Or both? (Edit: I really have seen people make those conspiracy claims, it is not totally a joke. They also didn't have any references, unlike wikipedia.)

Neither the Bahraini security forces nor Wikipedia is a credible source. As a Wikipedia editor I've seen enough edit wars. It is also well documented that all sides in the middle eastern conflicts invest heavily in propaganda. Here is but one example: The U.S. military payed over $540 millions to the British public relation firm Bell Pottinger [2] to create 'al-Qaeda' videos [2]. $540M buys you a lot of willing propa…

So you argue against references in a Wikipedia article -- with a reference to Wikipedia(!). You link to something else in a neighboring country, that basically claim that propaganda is done in an active war?

You can literally argue that the Earth is flat like that, using a reference to My Little Pony.

Your position needs that all the news are a conspiracy -- e.g. that the Gulf countries are lying about being threatened by Iran and just wasting tens of billions of dollars in weapon buys for no reason.

Extraordinary claims needs extraordinary support, you don't even have a coherent conspiracy theory -- just claims that anything that contradicts the Iranian priests could maybe be a plant.

Enough.

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#44

Post by mafribe »

berntb wrote: post #43
mafribe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the Bahraini security forces nor Wikipedia is a credible source. As a Wikipedia editor I've seen enough edit wars. It is also well documented that all sides in the middle eastern conflicts invest heavily in propaganda. Here is but one example: The U.S. military payed over $540 millions to the British public relation firm Bell Pottinger [2] to create 'al-Qaeda' videos [2]. $540M buys you a lot of willing propa…

So you argue against references in a Wikipedia article -- with a reference to Wikipedia(!). You link to something else in a neighboring country, that basically claim that propaganda is done in an active war? You can literally argue that the Earth is flat like that, using a reference to My Little Pony. Your position needs that all the news are a conspiracy -- e.g. that the Gulf countries are lying about being threaten…

You still have not explained why anyone should trust the Bahraini security forces.

Some Wikipedia articles are more trustworthy than others. I certainly trust the Wikipedia articles I have written. The Bell Pottinger article was presumably launched by Bell Pottinger itself, so it's probably the most positive spin on Bell Pottinger. The Iranian article was probably launched by a PR agency paid to make Iran look bad.

That's the reality of mass media: essentially all articles of consequence are paid for by somebody. Yes, that makes it difficult to see what the truth is. Such is life. One still needs to try.

And now tell me why the Bahraini security forces are a trustworthy source of information.

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#45

Post by berntb »

mafribe wrote: post #44
berntb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you argue against references in a Wikipedia article -- with a reference to Wikipedia(!). You link to something else in a neighboring country, that basically claim that propaganda is done in an active war? You can literally argue that the Earth is flat like that, using a reference to My Little Pony. Your position needs that all the news are a conspiracy -- e.g. that the Gulf countries are lying about being threaten…

You still have not explained why anyone should trust the Bahraini security forces. Some Wikipedia articles are more trustworthy than others. I certainly trust the Wikipedia articles I have written. The Bell Pottinger article was presumably launched by Bell Pottinger itself, so it's probably the most positive spin on Bell Pottinger. The Iranian article was probably launched by a PR agency paid to make Iran look bad. T…

So you argue: Iran don't do terror.

For that to be true, you claim there is a conspiracy that control all the news and Wikipedia. (And e.g. that the Gulf countries pay tens of billions of dollars for defense -- just to make Iran look aggressive!)

I assume that the terror stamping of Quds force is part of the conspiracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

All this without any references. Of course.

[Edit: All the dictatorships on the planet insist that all the bad news about torture, oppression and terror are just a conspiracy by USA and western media. These are done for no other reason than that we hate the juntas for being good people.

As a Westerner, I don't understand how I have time to sleep; all of us must be working 80+ hours a week on all these conspiracies! :-) ]

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#46

Post by acqq »

berntb wrote: post #45
mafribe wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still have not explained why anyone should trust the Bahraini security forces. Some Wikipedia articles are more trustworthy than others. I certainly trust the Wikipedia articles I have written. The Bell Pottinger article was presumably launched by Bell Pottinger itself, so it's probably the most positive spin on Bell Pottinger. The Iranian article was probably launched by a PR agency paid to make Iran look bad. T…

So you argue: Iran don't do terror. For that to be true, you claim there is a conspiracy that control all the news and Wikipedia. (And e.g. that the Gulf countries pay tens of billions of dollars for defense -- just to make Iran look aggressive!) I assume that the terror stamping of Quds force is part of the conspiracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force All this without any references. Of course. [Edit: All th…

> all of us must be working 80+ hours a week on all these conspiracies

This is of course not true, but the various forms of propaganda are actually organized and financed, just an example of some very recent title presented here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12622216

And there are other possibilities of distorting the truth, this one caught:

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamis...

If you wonder why it is deleted, it's because White House decided that it won't allow any material originating from them to contain such terms, but when editing got the media attention avoided to admit they do this. What's the origin of that? I wish I have something better, the only public source I can find is Obama's 2009 speech:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-presiden...

Obama: "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

It was of course never the part of his responsibilities, as the US is not there to service any specific religion.

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#47

Post by berntb »

acqq wrote: post #46
berntb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you argue: Iran don't do terror. For that to be true, you claim there is a conspiracy that control all the news and Wikipedia. (And e.g. that the Gulf countries pay tens of billions of dollars for defense -- just to make Iran look aggressive!) I assume that the terror stamping of Quds force is part of the conspiracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force All this without any references. Of course. [Edit: All th…

> all of us must be working 80+ hours a week on all these conspiracies This is of course not true, but the various forms of propaganda are actually organized and financed, just an example of some very recent title presented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12622216 And there are other possibilities of distorting the truth, this one caught: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamis... If y…

mafribe already had (another) link to the first case. I answered by noting that I have never contradicted that propaganda for the combatants is done in an active war.

And for the second "point" -- political correctness is part of a giant conspiracy theory for lying about all the Iranian terror support?!

:-)

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#48

Post by acqq »

berntb wrote: post #47
acqq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all of us must be working 80+ hours a week on all these conspiracies This is of course not true, but the various forms of propaganda are actually organized and financed, just an example of some very recent title presented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12622216 And there are other possibilities of distorting the truth, this one caught: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamis... If y…

mafribe already had (another) link to the first case. I answered by noting that I have never contradicted that propaganda for the combatants is done in an active war. And for the second "point" -- political correctness is part of a giant conspiracy theory for lying about all the Iranian terror support?! :-)

Of course not, it's just an example of how the political decisions once made and applied distort the whole public perception of some issues for years to come.

The claim of "Iran funding terrorism" is in fact due to its recent (as in decades) support of Sunni Hammas, which is the most direct threat to Israel, and which started as a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot financed also by the Saudis.

Fascinatingly, Islamic Hammas was also once seen by Israel as the "potentially better" than less religious PLO and Israel even indirectly supported it, almost like the "moderate" Islamic rebels are still supported by the US.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

Time and again it turns out that every "Islamic" group will eventually turn against the West. Those that support them don't understand the basic tenets of the religion behind.

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#49

Post by berntb »

acqq wrote: post #48
berntb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mafribe already had (another) link to the first case. I answered by noting that I have never contradicted that propaganda for the combatants is done in an active war. And for the second "point" -- political correctness is part of a giant conspiracy theory for lying about all the Iranian terror support?! :-)

Of course not, it's just an example of how the political decisions once made and applied distort the whole public perception of some issues for years to come. The claim of "Iran funding terrorism" is in fact due to its recent (as in decades) support of Sunni Hammas, which is the most direct threat to Israel, and which started as a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot financed also by the Saudis. Fascinatingly, Islamic Hammas…

>> The claim of "Iran funding terrorism" is in fact due to its recent (as in decades) support of Sunni Hammas

Uh, not only Hamas. There are lots of other cases.

You even commented on where I gave this link to the terror stamped Quds force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

I posted this link previously too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

And so on.

(I have no clue about Islam in itself, but there were peaceful and modern Muslims in Yugoslavia. That is at least one modern example. It might also be noted that the upper classes in Iran seem to be about as West oriented as the Scots or the Irish.)

Re: Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others

#50

Post by berntb »

mafribe wrote: post #18
berntb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saudi Arabia might export an extremist and hateful variant of their religion, but they don't advocate terror (you don't rock the boat when you're on top of the world). Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter (Pakistan might be worse?) and militarily expansionist. I think they even (internally) argue for their goal of controlling the muslim holy places, etc. So Iran actively destabilizes Middle East count…

Saudi Arabia might export an extremist [...] but they don't advocate terror Some contradiction right there. Iran is probably the world's largest [...] militarily expansionist. Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years, and how does this compare with e.g. the Soviet Union, the US, the UK, the Mongols, the Incas? Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter Reference needed. Which large scale terr…

I saw this much later. This is a misquote of what I said:

  >> Iran is probably the world's largest [...] 
  >>   militarily expansionist.
(But, as I noted, even the Iran priests talk about "emancipating" the Islam holy places from Saudi Arabia -- that even scared the Gulf States and SA to work with Israel.)
Post reply on HN