WHY were the hostages taken?
The US media overwhelmingly sweeps US crimes under the rug, many don't realize how much the US media bends over backwards to sweep these things under the rug. Notice the US propaganda right now about Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Notice how the media avoids saying WHY the hostages were taken? It is off the wall how in the past and still today the majority of MSM refuses to say WHY the hostages were taken.
"The students seized the embassy to protest the US refusal to hand over Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian leader who had been ousted from power that year." Notice that MSM is extremely reluctant to make the basic facts clear the the public?What the hell right did the US have to install the puppet leader in the first place? What an enormous violation of the rights of the Iranian people, they make strides in democracy and the US undermines their democracy and reinstalled a KING to power!
What the hell right did the US have to refuse to hand over the Iranians' own former leader?(the US did not want to send a message that we don't protect our puppets ) And sure enough, the MSM basically hides these facts when reporting on the events of 1979. Notice that the perfectly responsible demand of a sovereign people to hold their own (supposedly) leader accountable was refused by US leaders and suppressed by overwhelming degree by US media. We are a nation that fought to free ourselves from a king yet this is the ugly hypocritical "dirty business" that US policy makers were willing to do to foreign peoples. Truly disgusting, and it is despicable that MSM works so hard to serve this agenda and suppress this "dirty business".
There has been such extreme suppression of the facts of US policy that you are totally unprepared when one fact slips through in a story. You guys really are pseudo-patriotic indoctrinated totalitarian-minded folks. One little fact (from 115 years ago for God sakes!!!) slips into a story and you guys go bananas? You guys really have problems.
Sharon continues to complain that Reuters wrote "Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee." She complains, "it seems odd to me that a feature story with international circulation wouldn't include events that might be better KNOWN by the Europeans."
The fact that the US military fought Indians is a well known fact in Europe, when an artilce says "the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee." it is not an unknown concept.
I explained this to you in detail:
The massacre at Wounded Knee is considered the last battle between white soldiers and Native Americans. It is known as "The Massacre at Wounded Knee" that is why Reuters thought it was "safe" to use the word "massacred"
The woman is so old that she was alive when the US was still fighting Native Americans.
The reference is fine and only can be an issue with those that insist that only favorable events must be referred to if they relate to the US, even a US government of 115 years ago. The reference puts her birth in a DIFFERENT ERA because it is considered the last battle between the US troops and the Native Americans, it closes a ERA, it is very significant, and thus emphasizes her age. Your examples of a sports game or yet another State being added does not put her birth outside a particular era. Three states were added the year before, two states added in 1890 and another added in 1896, not really dramatic, not closing an era, not life and blood.
The mere fact that it is something that doesn't cast the US government of 1890 in a good light makes you guys go bananas. There really is a problem with rational thought here. To argue that only "innocuous" events must ever be referred to in stories is simply a fanatical position.
You resorted to lies once again. The MSM did not discuss the reason WHY "ad nauseam". But that wasn't even my question . The question was if the MSM was making the public aware NOW. NOW, Sharon, not in 1979.
The US violated the rights of the Iranian people by orchastarting a coup to reinstall the Shah. The Shah was a harsh dictator and many Iranians were murdered. When they overthrew him they were worried that the US would screw them over once again using the CIA to reinstall the Shah. When the students took over the embassy, they actually called it the "den of spies" because they knew the '53 the coup had been actually plotted from the U.S. compound, the very same building that they took over. They demanded that the US hand over the Shah, the US refused. "In the United States, if you watch how the media covered it here, it saw the hostage crisis as Iranian emotional rampaging mobs in the streets calling for death of America and the '53 coup was intentionally not brought into that context. So you can go for reams of programs on the main channels in the United States about the hostage crisis, which lasted 444 days, and you rarely get the mention of the '53 coup."
And you could have watched tons of programs on the main channels and not hear WHY the hostages were taken. Today, you can watch tons of reports mentioning the hostage crissis and not hear about WHY the hostages were taken.
Sharon, you lie once again about how the media behaved.