-
Hey! WAR IS GREAT! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!?!
-
CNN isn't usually one to run news stories in favor of Trump. I think we should be working with Asad and Russia tho. At this point all news is propaganda if we're saying CNN is supporting Trump.
-
Why should we be working with Assad?
-
We have a common enemy.. ISIS.. deal with them then we can work on our differences.
-
So work with the guy allegedly using chemical weapons on his own people?
-
To get rid of ISIS? Yes. It's all accusations.
-
At this stage I don't see ISIS as the bigger threat.
-
Lol because of "propaganda" about Russia? Divide and conquer just might work for ISIS.
-
No, because of the use of chemical weapons.
-
So a Syrian thanking Trump for responding to an attack with chemical weapons is propaganda. Yet you don't think we should work with Asad and the Russians. I don't understand your position. It seems hypocritical to me.
-
Edited by Britton: 4/11/2017 3:30:36 PMI never said I don't think we should work with Russia. But our cooperation should hinge on them actually wanting to work with us. No we shouldn't be working with Assad. And it's definitely propaganda. You're being shown someone who thinks a certain way, to influence you to feel that way also.
-
Well if you want to work with Russia you're going to have to work with Assad too.. and at that point everything is propaganda.
-
Not if we can leverage Russia against Assad. And no. There's a big difference in saying "Today in a decisive move, Trump flexed America's muscle against our enemies in a retaliatory strike against Assad" Vs. "Today the president ordered a missle strike against the Syrian government, in response to the allegations they used Chemical weapons on their own people." The verbs and adjectives convey very different messages.
-
[quote] There's a big difference in saying "Today in a decisive move, Trump flexed America's muscle against our enemies in a retaliatory strike against Assad" Vs. "Today the president ordered a missle strike against the Syrian government, in response to the allegations they used Chemical weapons on their own people." The verbs and adjectives convey very different messages.[/quote] And none of that was said by the Syrian.. which ever one it is that you would prefer.
-
Allegedly? My friend is a missionary is Syria, and he's pretty sure. [spoiler]lol by that I mean he was very near the bombing. [/spoiler]
-
I don't doubt there was a chemical attack. But the party responsible is still not verified.
-
Yeah, those conservative bastards at CNN! All they want to do is support Trump! Also, you double posted.
-
My bad on the double. Promotion of war isn't partisan. There are war mongers on both sides.
-
Mass murder, the one thing both parties can agree on. Well, that and mass surveillance. Noticing a pattern, I wonder how the reps and dems feel about mass effect...
-
Idk. Probably something about inter species intercourse.
-
True, but 1) War isn't necessarily going to arise from bombing Assad's planes. I mean, it hasn't yet. 2) The interviewer was clearly trying to get him to diss Trump.
-
It will if we are going to continue down this path. Whether it's Iraq 2.0 or something else. It's original intent is irrelevant to how it's being used now.
-
Edited by Lethenza: 4/9/2017 10:58:49 PM[quote]It will if we are going to continue down this path. Whether it's Iraq 2.0 or something else.[/quote] To be honest, I think Assad will cool his shit. If he doesn't I'm not against doing the right thing and ending his reign. It's one thing to be a dictator, it's another to commit war crimes. I can't really advocate doing nothing when innocent people are being gassed, but that's just my opinion. War is generally not a good thing but if Assad keeps this up I wouldn't mind the US (and/or other nations in the UN) stamping him out. [quote]It's original intent is irrelevant to how it's being used now.[/quote] Propaganda might be a strong term though. Not trying to brainwash anyone, just trying to share a viewpoint that's really close to the action, and unique in that we haven't really seen it like this before. Or, at least, I haven't.
-
Edited by Britton: 4/10/2017 1:06:37 AMI don't advocate for total inaction. But whatever action we do take needs to be taken with the long term picture at the forefront of the decision making process. We can't just be wanton about it, or making moves purely for political points back home. Eh. It fits the definition of propaganda pretty well. [quote]the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person[/quote] in this case, the cause is supporting Trump's actions, and most likely more actions like it. It's definitely not constructive skepticism.
-
No, you're right. I approve of what he's done. I guess you can call me the propaganda man.