FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


CNN Banned from IRAN





maclui
CNN was banned from Iran after an interpreter mistranslated the words of the president of Iran. In a simultaneous translation the president said "Iran has the right to have Nuclear Technology" while the translator interpreted it as: "Iran has the right to have Nuclear Weapons". Obviously a big mistake how ever the response was severe.

Personally I think that many things said about the irani nuclear program have been exaggerations from US media or its allies. This case is so extreme. It is like they are just expecting that when iranies say the word "nuclear" it must be linked to the word "weapon" because it comes from an Evil Islamic Nation.
valient
Ye Iran's president is right he has right to have nuclear Technology.

and American media and it allies always help american cause whatever issue is.

Quote:
when iranies say the word "nuclear" it must be linked to the word "weapon" because it comes from a Evil Islamic Nation


ye So Called Evil islamic State but Israel is more evil then iran . 2nd largest Nuclear weapon storage israel Got. and they asking iran not to get nuclear technology:-s
nik
and the israeli are right. if they will try to buld anything like that it will be like the first time.. will go BOOM
marquis51
Anyway who really cares about the news of CNN, it s funny some minutes once in a while just to laugh in front of the famous "breaking news" but at the end, you dont learn anything. They only teach you what they want you to learn to be a good soldier of capitalism. SO the poor Iranians are now richer in their mind since they got rid of CNN. On the other side, lets remember that the iranian president is an extremist and that his declarations make no doubts he is. Someone stating that the concentrations camps didnt exist is not someone to trust from my point of view. Someone forbidding foreign music in it s country has a real problem come on...
SunburnedCactus
They've now been unbanned, I see. The translator in question was actually hired from an outside agency also.
gonzo
valient wrote:
Yand American media .. always help american cause whatever issue is.


Do you even pay the slightest attention to what the US "mainstream media" regulary says about "the bush administration"???


The "mainstream media" is anything BUT American.
ocalhoun
Next we see "CNN banned from America"
Applause
Then "CNN banned from the world"
Dancing
Soulfire
Go figure, they'll ban anything there that has remotely anything to do with America. Maybe it's because CNN is all liberal.
dray101
Isn't it funny how when the US, UK, Australia and their friends have nuclear technology and weapons it fine but when anyone else has or is thinking of getting it (like North Korea and Iran) its the end of the world AND WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE! Crying or Very sad

I think have nuclear technology on your own soil is more scary,
it makes you the first target for a major attack. Sad

And what if there was an accident with one of your nuclear power pants or something --- I think you much more likely to die from that. (good target for terrorists, anyone watch 24) Wink

Man I'm gland I live in New Zealand. Very Happy
luxtu
maybe iran is not perfect but this's exaggeration
maclui
Quote:
Man I'm gland I live in New Zealand.


You are right, having nuclear stuff is risky, but unfortunately not having it does not save you from a big atomic disaster. Winds, water and the dynamics of the planet can make atomic particles travel long distances even to peaceful and civilized nations.
S3nd K3ys
dray101 wrote:
Isn't it funny how when the US, UK, Australia and their friends have nuclear technology and weapons it fine but when anyone else has or is thinking of getting it (like North Korea and Iran) its the end of the world AND WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE! Crying or Very sad


Last time I checked (not counting the highly successful and life-saving bombs dropped on Japan) the US never threatened anyone with nukes unless they were threatened with them.

Quote:

Man I'm gland I live in New Zealand. Very Happy


Me too.

Wink
SunburnedCactus
dray101 wrote:
Man I'm gland I live in New Zealand. Very Happy


I personally am very gland. Very Happy
dray101
New Zealand Rocks!!!!! Very Happy Laughing Laughing Very Happy

Oh and....

S3nd K3ys wrote:

Last time I checked (not counting the highly successful and life-saving bombs dropped on Japan) the US never threatened anyone with nukes unless they were threatened with them.


I never said that the US was threatening anyone but neither is North Korea or Iran (well not last time I checked). I was just saying it seems to be fine for people to have nukes as long as the are buddy-buddy with the US else, well, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

And the BOMBS dropped on Japan--- saving lives? Wink

Last time I checked the killed millions when all the had to do was tell Japan that the had them I think that would have done it. Either way there was no need for the second bomb, they had made there point. The second bomb was for practice.

Man I gland (lol I mean glad- stupid spell-check) that I live in NZ!!!!
riyadh
i think iran should celebrate the fact tht cnn was banned. hate tht channel, pro-bush. i wish it was banned form bangladesh.
zapdude
I'm not surprised really, I mean it's CNN isn't it? Who the hell watches they just distort the truth.
As for nuclear weapons they should have NEVER even been meddled with in the first place! Confused
monkeystravels
Quote:
Last time I checked (not counting the highly successful and life-saving bombs dropped on Japan) the US never threatened anyone with nukes unless they were threatened with them.


The threat of the US using nuclear weapons in the Korean War was very real. General Douglas McArthur wanted to use them; ironically it was President Truman (the man responsible for the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan) who refused the request.

Quote:
And the BOMBS dropped on Japan--- saving lives? Wink

Last time I checked the killed millions when all the had to do was tell Japan that the had them I think that would have done it. Either way there was no need for the second bomb, they had made there point. The second bomb was for practice.


The casualties resulting from the bombs on Japan were in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. The US argument for using atomic weapons to force a surrender were twofold. Firstly, by bringing the war to an end many American lives would be spared, as an invasion of the Japanese homeland would not be necessary. Also meaning that many Japanese would not have to die defending the homeland. An unconditional surrender would render the Japanese government as the disposal of the US. The continuation of the Japanese government maintained order and national unity. As we can see from the recent example in Iraq, military occupations are costly (in terms of human life and material), nor do they create an efficient society. Secondly, it can be argued that the beginnings of the Cold War were in motion. The USSR undoubtedly had designs for the Far East, as could be seen with the Manchurian land grab just before Japan surrendered. Bringing a swift end to the war would prevent the USSR from taking Japanese held territory in Asia. Atomic weapons were the means to do this.
zapdude
I guess it just goes to shopw Americans will do anything to win a war.
Vietnam was a laugh
maclui
Quote:
not counting the highly successful and life-saving bombs dropped on Japan

That is news, As long as I have seen bombs are meant to kill. Perhaps we should ask to some Hiroshima and Nagasaky survivors how many lives the bombs saved.
Or maybe they are not as smart as we are to see that dropping weapons of mass destruction to crowded cities is really a life-saving act.
dray101
monkeystravels wrote:

The casualties resulting from the bombs on Japan were in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. The US argument for using atomic weapons to force a surrender were twofold. Firstly, by bringing the war to an end many American lives would be spared, as an invasion of the Japanese homeland would not be necessary. Also meaning that many Japanese would not have to die defending the homeland......

Secondly, it can be argued that the beginnings of the Cold War were in motion...... Bringing a swift end to the war would prevent the USSR from taking Japanese held territory in Asia. Atomic weapons were the means to do this.

I still think the could have found another way for "unconditional surrender". Even the Japanese government would probably have surrendered if the new that the US had the technology and were willing to use it.

Anyway you missed the point THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE SECOND BOMB, they had made there point, the Japanese would surrender. The second bomb was for practice!!!!
Woet
maclui wrote:
CNN was banned from Iran after an interpreter mistranslated the words of the president of Iran. In a simultaneous translation the president said "Iran has the right to have Nuclear Technology" while the translator interpreted it as: "Iran has the right to have Nuclear Weapons". Obviously a big mistake how ever the response was severe.

Personally I think that many things said about the irani nuclear program have been exaggerations from US media or its allies. This case is so extreme. It is like they are just expecting that when iranies say the word "nuclear" it must be linked to the word "weapon" because it comes from an Evil Islamic Nation.


If america has nuclear weapons why not Iran?
monkeystravels
Quote:
I still think the could have found another way for "unconditional surrender".


Indeed the US could have forced an unconditional surrender another way: By invading the Japanese homeland, although this would undoubtedly have been more costly (in terms of material and human life) than using atomic weapons. I will also highlight that the Japanese culture of the time did not merit surrender; there was no honour in it. Honour in defeat was to be found in death. For example, banzai charges, civilian suicides on captured Japanese islands etc. The radioactive after-effects of atomic weapons were still in a mystery in 1945, nor was there any international legislation regarding their use, not that such laws would or should offer any restraint, WW2 was after all total war.

Quote:

Even the Japanese government would probably have surrendered if the new that the US had the technology and were willing to use it.


Put yourself in the position of a Japanese statesman in 1945. If the US were bragging that they have in their possession bombs powerful enough to destroy a city, with out credible evidence that they do, such claims would be seen as propaganda. The Japanese had indeed conducted research into nuclear reactors, fission and bombs. However, they were hopelessly behind the US and did not have the industrial capacity to seriously pursue nuclear technology. Therefore, in your scenario the Japanese would still have no basis for understanding atomic weapons or their potential power. The Japanese would not have surrendered if there were any doubt as to why they should surrender. Furthermore, the Manhattan project was shrouded in secrecy, and the US were not going to disclose any information about them, and they didn’t, choosing to use them in surprise for maximum wow factor.

Quote:
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE SECOND BOMB, they had made there point, the Japanese would surrender. The second bomb was for practice!!!!


I disagree, after the first bomb, the Japanese had three days in which to surrender, yet fought on. Thus disproving your first theory that an unconditional surrender could be extracted by merely telling the Japanese about the bombs, or by dropping one off the coast as a demonstration. As well as disproving your second theory that the second bomb was beyond reason. The Second World War was total war, and atomic bombs were just another weapon. If war is still declared then war there will be. It should also be remembered that the atomic weapons used against Japan were not very powerful compared to subsequent weapons. For example, the US fire-bombing of Japanese cities caused more destruction and loss of life. Atomic weapons also did not carry with them the same connotations of atrocity that they do now. Thus I urge you to not judge history by your own present day attitudes and values. History must be looked at in context. I am sorry if I sound harsh, but so was the context.
SunburnedCactus
This guy - he knows his stuff! Applause
S3nd K3ys
Great post, Monkeys..

Woet wrote:


If america has nuclear weapons why not Iran?


America doesn't go around threatening other countries and supporting terrorists.
amirkpe
Quote:

Evil Islamic Nation.

at first PLEASE DO NOT CALL IRANIAN AS A DEVIL NATION !!! what ever that mad regime do is not reffer to iranian people ...
about the ban ... the situatioon of iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inside Iran and outside is very crucial. as you know when he ordered to the ministry to let the CNN resume it's work , he wanted to show the iranian and the world a better view of himself ...

sorry for my bad English :p
[/quote]
chiragcoolboy
Evil- Thats the word
Splintex
maclui wrote:
CNN was banned from Iran after an interpreter mistranslated the words of the president of Iran.


I wonder if we could have CNN banned from Australia for being shit. Along with A Current Afair, This day Tonight and 60 Minutes. And while I'm at it that O'Reily guy from Fox, some one should definatly stick a Jihad on that guy. He opitimises the worst of the whole "Shock Jock" thing, I will refrain from using the word journolisim, (partly because I can't spell it but mostly) because It can't be applied to what that man does.

There are many things wrong with commercial media outlets in the world. One being that all of them are owned by about 4 different people. Makes it easy to portray the news you want to, and elect the government you want to, and price goods the way you want to, and incite the populous....

*Grabs tin foil hat and runs for his bomb shelter*

-Splint
/Really I'm not paranoid
//Waves to echelon
//props to carnivore program
maclui
Quote:
Evil Islamic Nation.

Quote:
at first PLEASE DO NOT CALL IRANIAN AS A DEVIL NATION !!! what ever that mad regime do is not reffer to iranian people ...

I am sorry I did not mean to say that, I was trying to be sarcastic thus saying anything but Evil Nation (or people), which I did not accomplish very well. Smile

Quote:
One being that all of them are owned by about 4 different people. Makes it easy to portray the news you want to


That is right media around the world is highly monopolized.
lyndonray
I can see why they would want to ban CNN. Why would you keep around someone who doesn't shine you in the best light. So CNN had to go. Sorry Christianne (Amanpour)!!

Of course it is not good for free press and all that good stuff. but what really worries me is the rhetoric coming from there. i mean when i heard that dude say israel should be wiped off the face this earth. i was like, "ok, you f**ked up". What president says that and expects nothing to happen. Ask Saddam what happened the last time he tried to play tough guy.

But seriously, that is really worrying. That a head of state can make a statement like that. hopefully this time around a solution can be found at the negotiating table.
bigdan
Splintex wrote:
maclui wrote:
CNN was banned from Iran after an interpreter mistranslated the words of the president of Iran.


I wonder if we could have CNN banned from Australia for being ****. Along with A Current Afair, This day Tonight and 60 Minutes. And while I'm at it that O'Reily guy from Fox, some one should definatly stick a Jihad on that guy. He opitimises the worst of the whole "Shock Jock" thing, I will refrain from using the word journolisim, (partly because I can't spell it but mostly) because It can't be applied to what that man does.

There are many things wrong with commercial media outlets in the world. One being that all of them are owned by about 4 different people. Makes it easy to portray the news you want to, and elect the government you want to, and price goods the way you want to, and incite the populous....

*Grabs tin foil hat and runs for his bomb shelter*

-Splint
/Really I'm not paranoid
//Waves to echelon
//props to carnivore program


nice to see another Australian here at Frihost! Wink I too would cancel ACA, and Today Tonight (where you referring to that show when you said This day Tonight?)...nothing but trash. I prefer to watch Toyota World Sports! Very Happy

I can't see why they need to censor CNN. If you don't like what you're seeing, turn it off!

Really....people today are not that stupid...let them make up their own minds.
Related topics
Google banned my site!!
The man elected as Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The downfall of american society
Great Books (series) banned by the pope.
Coalition of the Gloating: No Hurricane Relief for USA!
Iran nuclear showdown getting closer
President defiant at Iran-EU talks
Iran...war looming ?
Iran: very close to the nuclear power!!!
Things only a Republican could believe
Obama's strategy on Iran shows progress, success
Should heterosexual adoption be banned?
Demonizing the Enemy: Four Myths about Iran which need to be
Officials: Magnitude 7.8 earthquake rocks Iran, Pakistan
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.