Sweden slams Oprah Winfrey

[sbp]

http://news.findlaw.com/entertainment/s/20030917/mediaswedenoprahdc.html

Sweden's broadcasting watchdog said Wednesday it was censuring an Oprah Winfrey talk show for showing bias toward a U.S. military attack on Iraq.

The censure means Swedish television network TV4, which broadcast the show in February, must publish the decision but there are no legal or financial penalties, Annelie Ulfhielm, an official of Sweden's Broadcasting Commission, told Reuters.

"Different views were expressed, but all longer remarks gave voice to the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and should be the target of attack," Sweden's Broadcasting Commission said.

U.S. forces attacked Iraq in March and toppled Saddam's government after a three-week war. Before the war, Washington said Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction posed a threat but no such arms have yet been found.

The Swedish government strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying it lacked a U.N. Security Council mandate.

A TV4 spokesman said the Oprah Winfrey show usually drew an audience of about 100,000-140,000 Swedes, making it one of Sweden's more popular day-time television programs.

http://www.lemonizer.com/upload/uploadsSep/Oprah.jpg
Here, Oprah tells Sweden to "talk to the hand."

[nickel]

go Oprah
fvck the Swedes for being stupid enough to insinuate that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat to the United States and shouldn't be the target of attack.

that is all :mad:

[Kevster]

Sweden couldn't even protect their foreign minister from being stabbed in a market - they have had their heads in the sand for a looong time.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback

stupid enough to insinuate that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat to the United States

What exactly was the threat he posed? Please tell me.:confused:

[Butch]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What exactly was the threat he posed? Please tell me.:confused:

Clearly all the weapons of mass destruction he has . . . errr . . . had . . . maybe . . . I mean, c'mon isn't it obvious?!?!?!

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What exactly was the threat he posed? Please tell me.:confused:
terrorism

[Merlin]

Sweden slams Oprah Winfrey

In order to do that they must have been drinking their milk and had an extra helping of spinach. :hihi:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback

terrorism

Which terrorist organization was it that he ran/runs?

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Which terrorist organization was it that he ran/runs?
i'm not in the mood for your sympathizing angry young man thread today.


sorry :P

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback

i'm not in the mood for your sympathizing angry young man thread today.


sorry :P

I'll take your personal attack as an admission of defeat.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I'll take your personal attack as an admission of defeat.
do that if it makes you feel like a big man.
fact is, no matter what i would respond you would disagree with it.
it's gotten so old.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Which terrorist organization was it that he ran/runs?

I don't know that it was a formal organization as not all gangs have names. However, offering rewards to families of suicide bombers qualifies as supporting terrorism. :shrug:

[bachviet]

Originally posted by Merlin


I don't know that it was a formal organization as not all gangs have names. However, offering rewards to families of suicide bombers qualifies as supporting terrorism. :shrug:
:stupid:

[cheapie]

Originally posted by bachviet

:stupid:


:stupid:

[Cantacuzene]

How you said Saddam's threat to America was terrorism. How does providing a tiny pension to widows of criminals make you a terrorist threat to the US? I just want things like this explained, because I do not understand whatever the rationalization you are making here.

[Merlin]

Seriously, you don't see the connection?

Almost by definition, if someone pays or rewards you for doing something they are supporting that activity.

Almost by definition, if someone blows themselves up in order to kill civilians and make a "political" point, that is terrorism.

Therefore offering rewards to the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. Pretty cut and dried.

Now you can argue that the terrorists he was supporting/rewarding were doing their thing in Israel and not here, and you would be right. Nevertheless, I'm pretty okay with lumping all of those terrorists together as they would love to do the same to the USA if given the opportunity.

[Merlin]

Now let's get this thread back on track...More Oprah fat jokes. :D

[LPMiller]

Especially when your President is saying now that he didn't have ties to 9/11.

those damn Swedes, policing their own airways! I mean, I admit on the surface it seems kind of petty, but perhaps their equal time laws are a bit more strict than ours. So what? Unless you watch Swedish TV - and I cannot imagine why one would, except for the sex and nudity you can just catch on HBO once a year - whats the beef?

[Cantacuzene]

So Merlin, you are sayign we just spent 200 billion dollars, sent out army halfway across the globe, committed ourselves to rebuilding an entire nation, and most importantly gave the lives of hundreds of hundreds of american soldiers because Saddam gives a pittence to thw widows of a few murderers? :hmm: I seriously doubt that support for palestinian widows was the reason we did all this.

[Brendan]

My only question is: why single out Oprah? Hers was far from the only program to show a bias toward a U.S. military attack on Iraq. You'd damn near have to ban every show that as little as uttered a word about politics. :confused:

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by Brendan
My only question is: why single out Oprah? Hers was far from the only program to show a bias toward a U.S. military attack on Iraq. You'd damn near have to ban every show that as little as uttered a word about politics. :confused: Oprah's regular audience is probably a bit less educated (by default) than people that regularly watch news channels (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc). Oprah is a VERY influential person; she recommends a book and it turns into a best-seller in a week. The power and influence that Oprah has over her audience is mind-boggling; it could almost be seen as a minimal form of brain washing in some cases.

[johnnymk]

Oprah, the woman who believes in everything yet believes in nothing :hmm:

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
So Merlin, you are sayign we just spent 200 billion dollars, sent out army halfway across the globe, committed ourselves to rebuilding an entire nation, and most importantly gave the lives of hundreds of hundreds of american soldiers because Saddam gives a pittence to thw widows of a few murderers? :hmm: I seriously doubt that support for palestinian widows was the reason we did all this.

No there were other reasons as well, good or bad, real or precieved. And getting into that would take us much further off topic into areas that have already been discussed ad nauseam. The point here was he was clearly and publicly providing a degree of financial support for terrorism.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Merlin
The point here was he was clearly and publicly providing a degree of financial support for terrorism.

That wasn't what I asked. Way to continue dodging a question.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

That wasn't what I asked. Way to continue dodging a question.

Actually it was what you asked. You wanted to know how he was a threat and the answer given was terrorism. Wanting to create an arguement, you then foolishly asked how he was associated with terrorism. You were then told. I'm not going to debate whether or not we should have done what we did, everyone is entitled to their own opinion there, but he did publicly provide financial support for terrorist activities.

[Cantacuzene]

I asked where was the threat to america, you answered with terrorism. I asked how was Iraq a terrorist threat to america and you failed to give an answer that justifies war. There was a time in this country when you had to bomb Pearl Harbor in order for us to go to war. Now aparently all you have to get us to do is give money to the widows of terrorists. Ridiculous.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I asked where was the threat to america, you answered with terrorism. I asked how was Iraq a terrorist threat to america and you failed to give an answer that justifies war. There was a time in this country when you had to bomb Pearl Harbor in order for us to go to war. Now aparently all you have to get us to do is give money to the widows of terrorists. Ridiculous.

:stupid:


i agree. now, instead of waiting until thousands of americans die, the current political leaders think it wise to act preemptively. wtf is wrong with them????

[Merlin]

Well when numerous people die here in the US as a result of suicide bombers it does result in a fairly low tolerance for anyone engaged in or associated with that type of behavior. Yes, I know Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC bombings, but they did create a sense that terrirism (suicide bombings) anywhere cannot be tolerated. We all have different feeling on where the line should be drawn here. What you feels justifies war is different for what other people think justifyies it. It is an opinion. That opinion will differ. To argue an opinion is a pointless exercise in futility that will do nothing more than create ill will.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I asked where was the threat to america, you answered with terrorism. I asked how was Iraq a terrorist threat to america and you failed to give an answer that justifies war. There was a time in this country when you had to bomb Pearl Harbor in order for us to go to war. Now aparently all you have to get us to do is give money to the widows of terrorists. Ridiculous.
what's ridiculous is that you compare modern times to the '40's.
views on tons of things have changed since Pearl Harbor was bombed, and due in part to that surprise attack.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback

what's ridiculous is that you compare modern times to the '40's.
views on tons of things have changed since Pearl Harbor was bombed, and due in part to that surprise attack.

Good foreign policy never gets old. Bad foreign policy gets old quickly.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


That wasn't what I asked. Way to continue dodging a question.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Good foreign policy never gets old. Bad foreign policy gets old quickly.
and i've already told you what is old :rolleyes:
see the 11th post in this thread.

[le_stick]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What exactly was the threat he posed? Please tell me.:confused:

Iraq is a major oil supplier in the world, and Saddam is not on friendly term with our current administration. Therefore, he is a threat to our national security.

Before 1973 we, the United States government, only recognized Taiwan as a true China. After Nixon visited China, we then turned around and recognized China as a true China and Taiwan?????

So if you know the reason why we did what we did, then you will know the reason why we invaded/liberated Iraq.