4 ms·

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism? My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive. Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.
- megous 8y ago
  Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties. You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    thanks
rgbrenner 8y ago
Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
  - mc32 8y ago
    As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs. What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with. There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.
      - mc32 8y ago
        I don’t think that was conclusive (they didn’t have free access). Also, often times a first go at anything is typically faulty. It was; however, a reason to put things on hold and be more rigorous and investigate further. I think mostly it was the establishment (Dems, Repubs, Globalists, etc. m) that wanted Saddam out, no matter what. Only old-style conservatives and leftists and other small constituencies dissented.
megous 8y ago
> Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters. https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1043009346362167297 https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.

megous 8y ago
Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties. You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  thanks

rgbrenner 8y ago

Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.

Someone1234 8y ago
> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
- mc32 8y ago
  As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs. What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with. There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I don’t think that was conclusive (they didn’t have free access). Also, often times a first go at anything is typically faulty. It was; however, a reason to put things on hold and be more rigorous and investigate further. I think mostly it was the establishment (Dems, Repubs, Globalists, etc. m) that wanted Saddam out, no matter what. Only old-style conservatives and leftists and other small constituencies dissented.

megous 8y ago

> Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters. https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1043009346362167297 https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.