Protest Coverage

[Jonas]

Am I the only one who has noticed that the stations seem to cover less and less of the demonstrations each day, and more and more of the "we support genocide" campaign? (sorry about the loaded question.)

[TheEvilOne]

You think the protests are worthy of coverage? The protestors are saying nothing that we haven't heard before. The only time it's newsworthy is if they cause massive disruptions (which they often do). I think the networks are right to focus their coverage on the war itself.

As for that "we support genocide" remark... that was incredibly dumb.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/7/03 04:45 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: You think the protests are worthy of coverage? The protestors are saying nothing that we haven't heard before. The only time it's newsworthy is if they cause massive disruptions (which they often do). I think the networks are right to focus their coverage on the war itself.

youre probably right, bu the protestors dont cause massive damage. in the big one ages ago, 1/2 millions people walked in london, and 20 were arrested for disordelry behaviour.

As for that "we support genocide" remark... that was incredibly dumb.

yes. very, but still funny.

[Jonas]

At 4/7/03 04:45 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: You think the protests are worthy of coverage? The protestors are saying nothing that we haven't heard before. The only time it's newsworthy is if they cause massive disruptions (which they often do). I think the networks are right to focus their coverage on the war itself.

you missed the point, I'm asking about the prowar demonstrators vs. antiwar demonstrators. Not about war coverage, no that would be dumb.

As for that "we support genocide" remark... that was incredibly dumb.

No, I'm really dumb, not the remark. Get you facts straight, a remark has no measurably IQ.

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/7/03 03:35 PM, el_foka wrote: Am I the only one who has noticed that the stations seem to cover less and less of the demonstrations each day, and more and more of the "we support genocide" campaign? (sorry about the loaded question.)

Genocide- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group

well i wouldn't say that the US is performing acts of genocide since it is removing a select few from power...however, it is clearly evident that Saddam has inflicted genocide on his own people through his one religion, one economy, one leader dictatorship.

So is your implied statement of the pro-war agitators your own opinion or are you just mocking them?

[Jonas]

At 4/7/03 07:02 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:

At 4/7/03 03:35 PM, el_foka wrote: Am I the only one who has noticed that the stations seem to cover less and less of the demonstrations each day, and more and more of the "we support genocide" campaign? (sorry about the loaded question.)

Genocide- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group

well i wouldn't say that the US is performing acts of genocide since it is removing a select few from power...however, it is clearly evident that Saddam has inflicted genocide on his own people through his one religion, one economy, one leader dictatorship.

If the said goal is to get rid of the Iraqi regime, then that would qualify as a removal of a political party, therefore it is genocide. The entire process was carefully planned and executed, and we apperentally only seek Saddam's regime. That does smack of cleansing....

So is your implied statement of the pro-war agitators your own opinion or are you just mocking them?

Both.

[NJDeadzone]

removal and extermination are two entirely separate definitions. If Saddam's regime was able to co-exist with the US, there wouldn't be a problem. Dictatorships have been supported through the years by the United States, thus you can't compare the two. Just because a nation removes a leader from power does not mean it is out to eradicate his or her party from the face of the earth as you are implying.

[Jonas]

At 4/7/03 07:39 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: Dictatorships have been supported through the years by the United States, thus you can't compare the two. Just because a nation removes a leader from power does not mean it is out to eradicate his or her party from the face of the earth as you are implying.

We've stated countless times that Saddam needed to be removed, and not only Saddam, but his political party, since it is treated as the same facet as himself. I understand the whole problem of "support" for dictators, believe me, I've studied up, but regardless, we are forcing a regime change! Oh well...