[Flipside]

I think it's the lack of effort that appalls me most though. It's like it's too much effort to put anything but the thinnest veil between true intentions and stated opinions. There is obviously a hunt for excuses for some kind of retribution against Iran, it is obvious that the establishment is simply picking and choosing the information it wishes. While being proud of your country is a great thing, the image of America that is presented abroad is one of a people who assume that simply being America, or American makes it the best, the most honourable, or the only correct solution, hence my 'people in a room' analogy in another thread.
I have seen BBoards that would prove that image, but I've also seen ones which completely disprove it personally, I doubt it is as bad it is projected to be, but propoganda of 'The people are 100% behind us' is important to every countries leader.

I guess I get angry because it is us, the 'not-leaders' that take the brunt of arguments that we don't even have the full details of. It's easy to slip into thinking of all 'radical' muslims as mini-Osamas, so why should it not be equally as easy to think of all Western 'occupiers' as mini-Georges?

As an example, a British reporter in Australia was recently asked his opinion about the 'wave of Islamaphobia and mosque bombings' that was sweeping the UK. This came as quite a surprise to the reporter since there has been no such wave nor bombings.

Now, if countries that are highly developed and have a good communication network to the UK can still be led to believe that kind of thing, then it really isn't that hard to convince someone living in poverty in Afghanistan or Iraq of all kinds of things, or even in the suburbs of London.

We also are treated in the same manner, I think most of the people on the board have been on the Internet enough to know there are about 60 sides to every story.

We know it is happening and yet we continue to do it, because we are waved on by a well protected government with reasons that we half-know are not true, but we carry on, just in case they are, because the penalty of not acting could be people you know, whereas the cost of acting is people you don't know.
/ end rhetoric

[vyper]

Originally posted by Rictor


Leaving people alone - what a concept! Such a great idea in fact, that a few hundred years ago some tax-dodging rebels decided to get together and form a country based on it. If only they could see their creation now.
 

Wha... I thought you were one of the smart ones?

[Rictor]

I'll see your and raise you a .

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
No, that was the Saudis. Possibly the Egyptians as well, but I don't think so.

Actually, it was a rhetorical question; http://csmonitor.com/2005/0811/dailyUpdate.html

Other countries used do include Egypt, Pakistan, and I believe Uzbekhistan and Yeman.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Flipside
I think it's the lack of effort that appalls me most though. It's like it's too much effort to put anything but the thinnest veil between true intentions and stated opinions. There is obviously a hunt for excuses for some kind of retribution against Iran, it is obvious that the establishment is simply picking and choosing the information it wishes. While being proud of your country is a great thing, the image of America that is presented abroad is one of a people who assume that simply being America, or American makes it the best, the most honourable, or the only correct solution, hence my 'people in a room' analogy in another thread.
I have seen BBoards that would prove that image, but I've also seen ones which completely disprove it personally, I doubt it is as bad it is projected to be, but propoganda of 'The people are 100% behind us' is important to every countries leader.

I guess I get angry because it is us, the 'not-leaders' that take the brunt of arguments that we don't even have the full details of. It's easy to slip into thinking of all 'radical' muslims as mini-Osamas, so why should it not be equally as easy to think of all Western 'occupiers' as mini-Georges?

As an example, a British reporter in Australia was recently asked his opinion about the 'wave of Islamaphobia and mosque bombings' that was sweeping the UK. This came as quite a surprise to the reporter since there has been no such wave nor bombings.

Now, if countries that are highly developed and have a good communication network to the UK can still be led to believe that kind of thing, then it really isn't that hard to convince someone living in poverty in Afghanistan or Iraq of all kinds of things, or even in the suburbs of London.

We also are treated in the same manner, I think most of the people on the board have been on the Internet enough to know there are about 60 sides to every story.

We know it is happening and yet we continue to do it, because we are waved on by a well protected government with reasons that we half-know are not true, but we carry on, just in case they are, because the penalty of not acting could be people you know, whereas the cost of acting is people you don't know.
/ end rhetoric

You're right, we should be directing these arguments to our leaders, but I guess we all feel they don't give a rat's ass, so we vent our frustrations out here. It's a vicious cycle. We're not all flag wavers, but those that are ruin our image for everyone. Hell, I've got one right across the street from me.

China has been attempting to censor the net. Plus a lot of people just look for what they want to see when it comes to news. It takes work to be smart about things. Somewhere out there, someone is too lazy to find out the truth.