[El Tejon]

Gee, what do you know? Either the U.S. is using tac nukes or the foreign press is lying.

People hate America because the media, foreign and domestic, write more fiction about us than a gun rag writes about bears. America is the enemy! Whatever it takes to destroy us.:rolleyes:

www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3629 (http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3629)

[Zak Smith]

Depleted uranium weapons are not "tactical nuclear weapons."

Here's the lowdown on how dangerous D.U. is: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts150.html

It's also used as a counterweight material in some aircraft: http://www.varian.com/onc/shared/msds/depleteduranium.pdf

The risk from D.U. is highly overstated. It's about as dangerous as handling or breathing lead.

-z

[BowStreetRunner]

that whole website is unbelievable
kinda makes me glad ive got NBC to report the news to me.....
well....not really
but i am glad for FOX
BSR

[agricola]

yep, thank God for ole truth-tellin', straight-talkin' Fox:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

[Mike Irwin]

Christ, reading that I had to cover my entire house in tin foil.

Those people are :cuss: ing morons.

[Tamara]

You see no difference between that incident and announcing that we are nuking Baghdad? :scrutiny:

[twoblink]

The first question I always ask is; will it make me glow green at night? Will I be my own nightlight? If so, that's not good..

But DU is not that.. These people not only prove that the media is baised, they also prove that most of the people who are in the media, flunked chemistry...

See, another strike against public school education!!:D

Most of the media makes me want to barf. I only get CNN here in Taiwan, I don't get fox... and so :barf: and :barf:

[Jim March]

What the HELL country is this, anyhow? Is it a gag?

"Balochistan"?

[Azrael256]

Oh man, read this thing... “In the opening battle, the tank unit fired two 120 mm high velocity depleted uranium rounds straight down the main road, creating a powerful vacuum that literally sucked guerrillas out from their hideaways into the street, where they were shot down by small arms fire or run over by the tanks,” Oh, this is rich stuff. Why can't they make the republican guard believe this?

[dinosaur]

I gotta see them getting literally sucked from their hideaways. Who wrote this, Wile E. Coyote?:banghead:

[El Tejon]

Jim, region in Pakistan.

Hey, Jim, click on the "Heritage" folder thingie to enjoy some Urdu poetry. I know Malone will be angered at the use of Urdu on this forum, but I enjoyed the poetry. Look, Malone, they are lying in English as well as Urdu.:D

[Khornet]

I've figured it out. It's not your skepticism (scepticism to you) which bothers me: skepticism is healthy.

It's the unidirectional nature of your skepticism. That which favors the Right, or reflects well on America, gets the gimlet eye. Since the Right, and America, are human institutions, you naturally score a bullseye from time to time.

But I don't see you apply that critical eye to the Left, or to America's enemies, who by definition are at least as likely to be wrong or lying....at least in the eyes of a true skeptic, as opposed to an ideologue.

That's what I meant by the 'plank in eye' crack, bud. Now maybe I'm just seeing a reflection of the fact that the majority of posts here favor America and conservatism, and so the skeptic will most often be in the position of puncturing conservative balloons. Sort of a target-rich environment. But there are other skeptics here who seem to be able to look both left and right, know what I mean?

[Leatherneck]

That rag is stunningly, absurdly, anti-American. Simply a jaw-dropper.

Agricola, I commend KHornet's observation to your serious consideration. It seemed that, back on TFL, you were much more reasoning on the admittedly simpler issues regarding crime and gun control. I dislike seeing your credibility eroded by one-sidedness, friend. :(

TC
TFL Survivor

[Khornet]

in these troubled times. It's hard to keep one's head, at least for me, having strong feelings about this war and my country. For those who disagree, have at it --it's your right, and your duty. Just keep in mind that we hear lots of genuinely anti-American rhetoric these days, and if your arguments have that flavor, don't be surprised if you receive a heated response. Debates are great, shouting matches aren't. I will now take several deep breaths.

[Thumper]

I've strongly suspected that this agricola is not the same we had at TFL.

I don't think the old ag would fight so hard to subvert the Crown, or the guys on the ground.

[Soap]

This comes as no surprise. In my international relations class we recently watched a "why they hate us" sort of video. The amount of sheer lies and propaganda about the USG and military is insane.

It was sad at the same time since it was quite evident that the Arab people feel like international midgets. This is a civilization which was the most advanced and that is several thousand years old. Now this civilization is ruled by horrible governments and all of their GDPs combined are lower than Spain's alone. And now we have a nation that is barely 300 years old which is more advanced in nearly every sense of the word. We can beat them in virtually any arena. Therefore this causes a feeling of inadequacy with the Arab nations.

And when someone feels inadequate, they will make up any lies possible about the opposition. Their press just illustrates this condition.

[agricola]

this is the real agricola btw.

for a start, we are not getting the same coverage of this war that you are. watching and reading Fox's output on the internet one is immediately struck by how they present the news, and given that they lied and defended the right to lie over something as (comparatively) irrelevant as steroids in cattle, I look at some of the output and wonder; especially the continued links between Iraq and al-Qaeda which is totally and clearly false.

i am not anti-war, or anti-troops per se. my little brother is out there serving with the RAF in Kuwait at the moment, and i have good friends serving in Saudi and Iraq itself, and i do not tolerate him and them being put at risk for the purpose of gaining the US a further base in the middle east, seizing oil supplies and so on. if it was about liberating and defending the people of Iraq, I would support it - but it isnt, and demonstrably so. ergo i will not support you on this, although i do support our troops in so much as a quick victory will have them home as quickly as possible.

[twoblink]

agricola..

First, do what I do; forget the news; think logically for yourself.

As far as Saddam and Al-Qaeda.. I think the question you have to ask yourself is; if Bin Laden goes to Saddam and asks to buy a bio bomb or a chem bomb, would he sell one? I think to me, if you cannot answer "NO" with 100% confidence, then you have to go to war, no and's, if's, or but's..

Also, The UN is useless; they pass resolutions all day (#1441,1442) but will never have the brass to enforce it. They are paper tigers; they are basically comprised of 197 cry-babies..

Also, remember, the media is biased; so take what you see with a grain of salt.

I remember them showing a small boy (5 years old) that was "gunned down" by an Israeli soldier. The op-ed just ripped a new with comments like "What the muslims say about the attrocities committed by Israeli troops are true.." blah blah blah. The little "ooops" they forgot, is that the boy had bombs strapped to him... The minor details the media often "forgets" to show...

[ahenry]

i will not support you on this, although i do support our troops in so much as a quick victory will have them home as quickly as possible. This is not a position that a person can hold. You cannot “support the troops” but not the war. The troops are the war. Saying you support them but not the war is just a way for you to try and salve your conscience.

[cordex]

ahenry,
You cannot “support the troops” but not the war.
I disagree. One can oppose an action and the reasons behind that action, but wish for no harm to come to the boys and girls who are ordered out there to do their job.
Ag,
i am not anti-war, or anti-troops per se. my little brother is out there serving with the RAF in Kuwait at the moment, and i have good friends serving in Saudi and Iraq itself, and i do not tolerate him and them being put at risk for the purpose of gaining the US a further base in the middle east, seizing oil supplies and so on. if it was about liberating and defending the people of Iraq, I would support it - but it isnt, and demonstrably so. ergo i will not support you on this, although i do support our troops in so much as a quick victory will have them home as quickly as possible.
If it is demonstrably a case of the US grabbing oil supplies and establishing a foothold in the mideast, I urge you to educate us ign'r'nt Yanks. I'm interested in finding out what is in your superior British reporting (most of which is available here, by the way) that is able to provide hard evidence that our lyin', cheatin' colonial media doesn't want us to see.

[ahenry]

Don’t guess I’ll contest the point, but the way my mind works you can’t really show support for them while showing disagreement with the war. The two positions are mutually exclusive in my mind.

[Leatherneck]

Ag,
Thanks for responding reasonably. Regarding the FNC's lying and defending it: that's ludicrous. For a news outlet that advertises "fair and balanced" reporting to defend its right to lie is self-defeating. My only guess is that the lawyers made them do it. I don't much care. What I do get from Fox that's of benefit is an opposite-pole bias that allows the reasonable person to decide an issue based on a wider spectrum of "facts" than we typically get from the other three-letter news outfits.

I guess I'm with the "you can't have it both ways" crowd on this one. Your and my troops over there believe that what they're doing is, very simply, right.
For us to say it's wrong casts doubt on the correctness of their belief, and My God, they're killing based on those beliefs. Untenable.

BTW, I find the European outlets shrill and emotional in their reporting/editorializing, though not nearly to the extent of the Middle Eastern media. Do you find it so?

TC
TFL Survivor

[Khornet]

If you already believe the US is a bully with a fundamentally predatory agenda, then any US action on the inernational stage will be proof of that.

If on the other hand you believe that America is a powerful force for good in the world, and that war is sometimes unavoidable though never desirable, and that it is possible to be worse off with 'peace' than with war, and that there is such a thing as honor, and that honor matters, you'll be on the other side.

No question which it is for Khornet. I can see how it might appear to others who have the aforementioned view of America, but their initial premise is so wrong that all sorts of nasty conclusions follow from it, such as the continuance in power of people like Saddam.

[gburner]

Agricola...

I'll cite 4 other 'tagets' for US oil 'greed' that would be infinitely easier
for us to take over than the effort we are expending in Iraq:

Canada - no military to speak of.
Mexico - same, and easier to buy off with bribes.
Venezuela - same and same again.
Britain - your own North Sea holdings
could be ours without breaking a sweat.
(and you even possess WoMD and invade and subjugate your neighbors, so we have plenty of pretext).
:rolleyes:

Are these examples ludicrous??? Sure they are. But no moreso than the bulk of your posts.

You're an intellegent chap and should seek to understand us better and criticize less.

[cordex]

When someone brings up the idea that this war is about the US getting access to oil fields, I generally mention that if all we wanted was oil, we could have simply dropped sanctions against Saddam and dealt with him directly to get oil for less than this war is costing. Subjects work cheaper than citizens, so leaving Saddam in power would have been an excellent way to get cheapish oil.

Claiming "this war is for oil!" does not follow.

[Brian Maffei]

DU is more like a denser lead than anything else. Like all heavy metals, it is toxic to people when ingested. As far as radioactivity, well DU is used to shield gamma rays in lab equipment.

[OF]

Not to mention that we currently control the oil fiields. We could carve off the southern portion of Iraq, attach it to Kuwait write up a treaty or two and go home. But of course, we wouldn't do that because we're not souless bloodthirsty cowards.

The American military is an all-volunteer force, Ag. Those people are there because they want to be there. Think about that.

- Gabe

[agricola]

cordex,

if you read the BBC online, the times website, the Guardians or any of the quality papers, you must see how this war and the buildup to it was sold, and how it continues to be sold - the language used, especially on the BBC, is not the same as used on Fox (especially), which is altogether more jingoistic.

in the immediate aftermath the focus of the attack switched from Al-Qaeda to the "axis of evil". why has this occured? what link has been established between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, Iran and North Korea? stating that this is about WMD is a fallacy, because most countries of any means have either WMD or the ability to make and deliver them. stating this is about liberating the people of Iraq is a fallacy because there are more countries where people are as oppressed as the Iraqis are. If we were going to war to free all oppressed people, then I'd back that, but I dont get that impression.

Obviously if the US withdraws from Iraq leaving behind it a stable democracy enjoying the fruits that God has granted it I'll know I was wrong, sadly it just doesnt seem that will happen.

gburner,

LOL! maybe youse should try it, in alliance with your child and women killing friends. hypocrite.

[Khornet]

If you want to hold up the BBC and the Guardian as examples of reasonabe, unbiased reporting, I think you're losing the old edge. Furthermore, if those are the sources of your stance on this war, it explains a lot. I think you need to get around more, 'cause you're not being shown the whole picture.

Seems to me that it goes like this: Leftist bias is ok, and besides, there's no such thing. Rightist bias is, well, bias.

As I've said before, for a leftist to see the bias in the media would be like a fish feeling wet.

[gburner]

Let me get this straight, Agricola.

In your world, the inadvertent yet sadly unavoidable deaths of a relative handful civilian women and children in the prosecution of this most just war are to brand us with the mark of Cain. Yet the deaths of millions of the same innocents under the 'benign' rule of Saddam, with his manipulation of the Oil for Food program, the building of lavish palaces, the squandering of resources on WoMD, etc. is to be excused, condoned, rationalized and appeased by you and your ilk to the point of putting most of the western world at peril??? Even the most cockeyed relativist I know would gag at the hypocracy that you trowel out and you have the nerve to paint me with that brush. How dare you.

I have potatoes in my kitchen with eyes that see better than yours. Parasite.

[agricola]

khornet,

leftish bias is bias, we saw that during the Falklands War, the first Gulf War and most conflicts since. I didnt pay much attention to it then, and I dont pay much attention to it now. that doesnt excuse Fox, which is as clearly and blatantly biased.

fwiw, the Guardian especially does have a great deal of reporting experience and does show as many sides of the story as possible, far more than the Times or Torygraph for instance.

gburner,

you supported and continue to support terrorists, and yet support this war against terror. i oppose all terrorists and have stated as such. who is the hypocrite? the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries are not good old boys fighting the evil redcoats, they are men and women cut of the same cloth as Osama and his ilk. they target civilians, just as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the other scum do, and yet you fail to condemn them.

[gburner]

Agricola,

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If your kind had never stepped foot in Ireland and attempted to institute a protestant rump government,
you wouldn't have to worry about it, would you?

In fact, as a result of your country's racist, greedy, imperialistic designs on the rest of the worlds resources and your wholesale, willy nilly redrawing of the maps of Asia and the Middle East without regard for the aspirations of the indigeous folks whose throats your jackboots were on, we now, as the only superpower, have to go 'round cleaning up Mr. Churchill's mess. Shame on you.

[agricola]

ah, gburner:


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If your kind had never stepped foot in Ireland and attempted to institute a protestant rump government,
you wouldn't have to worry about it, would you?

In fact, as a result of your country's racist, greedy, imperialistic designs on the rest of the worlds resources and your wholesale, willy nilly redrawing of the maps of Asia and the Middle East without regard for the aspirations of the indigeous folks whose throats your jackboots were on, we now, as the only superpower, have to go 'round cleaning up Mr. Churchill's mess. Shame on you.

so i guess you'd be a supporter of the Palestinians then?

[gburner]

I support their existance and prosperity in their own land...Jordan. Unfortunately, they are used as the tip end of the spear by gutless Arab power elites to attempt to complete the genocide that Hitler could not finish.

'The Palestinians' are treated worse by their Arab friends than the Israeli's ever treated them.

Good debating skill though...when you can't rebut the previous point, bring up a non sequitur.
:rolleyes:

[agricola]

gburner,

i) the UK was opposed to the creation of the State of Israel, the US was in favour. That is hardly "Mr. Churchill's mess". By your logic, if the state of Israel had never been created, then there would be no Arab-Israeli problem.

ii) the homeland of the Palestinian people is Palestine, thats why they are called Palestinian. If they were from Jordan, they'd be Jordanians.

iii) do you support the targetting of civlians by terrorists or dont you?

[Nightfall]

agricola, could you lay out and explain your evidence that the Allied action in Iraq is only for oil? Kindly remember, America is not alone over there, so it seems rather odd that other nations would support us and aid us with troops and equipment to get oil for ourselves... anyway, I'd like to know the facts that prove this is a war for oil. Thanks!

P.S. I think Fox News IS biased. In favor of America, which is one reason I watch it. I can easily watch less red, white, and blue news channels... but it makes the blood less angry. :D It is hypocritcal to say 'fair and balanced' and then to work for a ruling like that. But, I enjoy their American 'slant' and their news reporting. All media outlets have some evil, I just chose this one. Kinda like politicians. :p

[JoeSF]

".....especially the continued links between Iraq and al-Qaeda which is totally and clearly false. "

Totally and clearly false? Really, well we are going to find out and soon aren't we?

[gburner]

Agricola...

Sorry about the delay, Had to break for lunch...cuffing you about is hungry business...where were we, oh yes.

The palestinians...must I debate a straw man and a man with a head full of straw at the same time? I call foul, but will endeavour to persevere.

I did not say that Israel was Mr. Churchill's mess. Nor do I agree with the analogy that you clumsily attempt to make between the Israeli/Palestinian issue and your country's self inflicted
Irish problem. Apples and oranges old chap. The Irish were getting along very well, thank you, without your country's ever so humanistic civilizing influence. The State of Israel was one of humankinds most generous and benevolent gifts to a people whom, once detatched from that land, had their asses handed to them for centuries by anti-semites worldwide, culminating in the Holocaust. At the time, the 'Palestinians' were squatters, much the same as your Protty friends in the northern counties of Ireland. They are largely Hashemite Bedouin...travellers of many places but not of one place. Your turn.

[Chris Rhines]

DU is not particularly dangerous to handle (wear gloves) provided that it is not injested into the body. DU is still a mild alpha emitter, and alpha particles are the real McCoy for genetic damage if they get into your body*. If vaporized DU is ingested or inhaled, it can be very bad news.

- Chris

* - Alpha particles (He nuclei) are huge and slow, which makes them easy to block. A few sheets of paper will do, as will 0.1mm of living skin. However, once they get inside the body they are enormously destructive.

[FPrice]

(excerpts from "US use tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq war):

"These weapons which are commonly known as Depleted Uranium Bombs, work like a Hydrogen Bomb."

First Big Lie. They are NOT Depleted Uranium Bombs. DU shells are non-explosive, they work because DU is very dense and makes a good penetrating shell for the A-10 Warthog's 30mm cannon. A Hydrogen Bomb is a fusion weapon, an explosive basically. Whoever wrote this article has no idea what they are talking about.

"In the opening battle the tank unit fired two 120 mm high velocity depleted uranium rounds straight down the main road, creating a powerful vacuum that literally sucked guerrillas out from their hideaways into the street..."

"These weapons create vacuum of such a great intensity that even the blood and flesh comes out of the mouth."

Second Big Lie. Perhaps the Army does have DU rounds for tanks which I am not aware of, but the idea that a 120mm round can create such a powerful vacuum is so laughable that anyone who believes this...stuff...quite probably does not have the brain power to manage their own autonomic nervous system. Quite simply, it is a physical impossibility.

"But, the Zionist expansionists who control the Pentagon kept manufacturing this devastating weapon for their ulterior motives."

At this point I have a hard time continuing because of the laughter which racks my body. We now see where this is coming from, the tinfoil hat anti-semitic crowd.

Oh, it IS a devasting weapon. But not for the preposterous reasons put forth in this garbage.

Propaganda, pure and simple.

[agricola]

gburner,

i take it you can demonstrate that between the Bar Kochba revolt and 1947 cities like Jerusalem and Bethlehem were unoccupied, or occupied only periodically. it may shock you but there is plenty of evidence that the people living in "Palestine" before the state of Israel's creation were the descendants of the people who had been there when the Ottomans were in power, when the Crusades marched up and down, when the armies of Mohammed forced the Byzantines from the area, and when the Jewish nation last ruled in Jerusalem. there have always been non-Jewish people living in Judaea, or Palestine or whatever name its been known as since the start of recorded history. It is as much their land as it is the people of Israel, who after all took it off someone else anyway.

the creation of the state of Israel is exactly the same issue as the establishment of Northern Ireland. Both "countries" are democracies; both countries have dispossessed their land from the historical owners of it; both have internal terror problems. You however distinguish between the cowardly, vile HAMAS-ite who kills women and children and attacks civilians in the most condemnable fashion possible, and the IRA and UDA man who nobly smites the redcoats by... killing women and children.

do you, yes or no, support the murder of women and children for political ends?

agricola

btw: i wont answer for eight hours or so as work beckons. no doubt you can find some more nonsense to state, but please provide links to your historical evidence to support the "wasteland theory"

[CZ-75]

Perhaps the Army does have DU rounds for tanks which I am not aware of

They do, or at least have in the past. They may be using tungsten now in their fin stabilized projectiles rather than DU.

[JoeSF]

Hey guys why stop at Fox? Here is a whole page devoted to distotrions by the media. Does that make all news suspect? If a tree falls in the forest and no one witnesses it , does it make noise?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/lie.html

[gburner]

I regret the loss of life in any struggle. I condemn the wanton killing
of innocents regardless of age, gender or political stripe; regardless of the motive employed for doing so.

That having been said...I accept that it happens with a frequency that is shocking and is perpetrated by men and governments whose intentions may be good or bad. I also accept that, as onerous as they are, these deaths are unavoidable.

Agricola, you live in a country that spent from the mid 1500's to the mid 1900's running roughshod over the face of the earth. Everything done in the name of God and country was accepted and even lyonized. Your navies controlled and manipulated trade. Your armies slaughtered millions of innocents and your rigid attempts to 'Anglicize' the rest were re-enforced with prison, forced labor, conscription, forced religeous conversion, torture and murder. That you would blame the victims for using whatever means necessary to oust your country and it's influence from their lives truly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of your country's culpability in current affairs.

Tell me, Agicola, how a country with nothing to export except coal, snotty hubris and cross dressing amasses such wealth as yours has had? YOU STEAL IT !!!
You folks have spent the better part of 4 centuries killing women and children as they slept. Don't preach to me.

[agricola]

gburner,

almost every modern nation is built on hundreds of thousands of skeletons of people. in your nations past, one could point out Sand Creek, the "Trail of Tears", and hundreds if not thousands of similar incidents. i wouldnt for a minute suggest that the US was a genocidal regime, but you are living in a glass house and you are throwing stones.

that said, i disagree with your notion that the UK was responsible for millions of deaths as well as the rest of your nonsense, which has served only to expose you as the Brit-hater you are

[cordex]

Ag,
I openly and without reservation condemn attacks by the IRA or any other Irish independance forces which intentionally target noncombatants, or are careless about the civilian casualties they inflict.
Same goes for the Palestinians, Isrealis, Americans, British, Iraqi and whomsoever else decides to, or is pushed to using force to achieve their goals.
if you read the BBC online, the times website, the Guardians or any of the quality papers, you must see how this war and the buildup to it was sold, and how it continues to be sold - the language used, especially on the BBC, is not the same as used on Fox (especially), which is altogether more jingoistic.
I'm well aware of how this war was sold.
I'm well aware of the differences in language used.
I'm well aware that FOX and BBC are going to have differences in the manner that information is presented, and the information itself that is addressed.
Let me ask, though ... does the BBC present more accurate information on this war than American media? Or is it just flavored in the fashion that you prefer?
stating that this is about WMD is a fallacy, because most countries of any means have either WMD or the ability to make and deliver them.
True enough.
If for some reason we thought that ... oh, I don't know ... Iraq (for instance) was more likely to use WMD or supply them to Uber Bin Evil or whoever is the big terrorist leader that we're going after today, than .... hmmm .... Britain - might it make sense we'd target them instead, or at least first?
stating this is about liberating the people of Iraq is a fallacy because there are more countries where people are as oppressed as the Iraqis are.
Which makes the fact that we're liberating them false ... how?
If we were going to war to free all oppressed people, then I'd back that, but I dont get that impression.
You'd really back that? Oh, I imagine if the guy you elect proposed it you'd be fine with it, but I'm betting that if Bush came out and said "Okay boys, we're marching on Tyranny today! Down with oppression everywhere!" you'd be out and about with your "this is about oil and control over nations" bit right off the bat. Seems that it's more the country and the man that you're against, and you oppose the actions out of principal.
Just the impression I get.
Obviously if the US withdraws from Iraq leaving behind it a stable democracy enjoying the fruits that God has granted it I'll know I was wrong, sadly it just doesnt seem that will happen.
I sincerely hope that some day I'll get to rub this in your face. But that is for another time and only time will tell if I'm simply a naive, romantic fool who wanted to believe in what his country was doing.

Cheers.

[gburner]

Agricola,

Contrary to your assertion, I am not a 'Brit Hater'. My family came to the US in the 1880's from Sheffield where they worked in the silver trade. I still
proudly carry an old English last name.

Whether you disagree with the 'notion'
that the crown is/was responsible for millions of deaths is irrelevant as it is historical fact. With this in mind,
you have absolutely no moral basis from which to criticize what you erroneously consider imperialistic designs by the
US on Iraq.

That you would throw up the deaths of women and children as well as personal name calling shows a rather immature reliance on emotion to sway the argument, rather than using fact and common sense.

[Daniel T]

agricola said:
...especially the continued links between Iraq and al-Qaeda which is totally and clearly false.

It is? (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cl=cR)

Quote from the article:
The camp, set back in an isolated valley and surrounded by snowcapped peaks, was home to the radical Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam, which counts among its some 700 followers scores of al-Qaida fighters.

Or maybe MSNBC is lying too?

[Malone LaVeigh]

OK, once the fighting started I said I wouldn't get sucked into a discussion over whether it is justified or not, but thayt doesn't stop me from addressing some of the poor thinking around here.

So, El Tejon found an example of a biased news report in the foreign press. Wow, what a surprise. I guess I'll just throw all skepticism to the wind now and believe everything the true, patriotic voices of Fox and Rupert Murdoch say. Because, obviously, if the Bolochistan Press is lying, then so is everyone else in the world except for those with red, white and blue tatooed on their butts.

Thank god for the British press, not perfect of course, but a lot less biased than the "in bed" reporting in the US press.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0404-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0404-02.htm

'Nuff for now...

[cordex]

Malone,
If you think people need Brit-biased or Euro-biased media to tell them that war in general sucks, you're just being silly. War ain't pretty, and I've never seen a reporter (Fox based or otherwise) claim that it was. People - innocent people - are dying. That's bad. No doubt. And - contrary to popular belief - the Brits aren't the only ones reporting the coalition mistakes.

On the one side we've got an ugly war with all the dirty, bloody, painful stuff that comes along with that. On the other we've got an ugly dictator with all the dirty, bloody, painful stuff that comes along with that. The difference? We'll quit clusterbombing when the war's over. We've got no reason to think that the Saddameister is going to stop ordering people into wood chippers any time soon. Or stop paying Palestinian militants for killing Israelis. Or playing with chemradbio weapons.
*shrug*
When you treat a cancer, you kill some good cells but you can save the vast majority.

[CZ-75]

but thayt doesn't stop me from addressing some of the poor thinking around here.

:rolleyes:

That's rich.

[Dannyboy]

Thank god for the British press, not perfect of course, but a lot less biased than the "in bed" reporting in the US press.
Dude, if think the British press is less biased than any of the US media outlets, you're obviously not as smart as you think you are. Oh wait, being the lefty that you are, it's not bias, it's the truth, right?

[Malone LaVeigh]

That's rich.Unusually substantive retort, there CZ.

[CZ-75]

It seems like those are the only kind you respond to.

I thought maybe you'd like to back your statement up.

[JoeSF]

except for those with red, white and blue tatooed on their butts.
Very poor choice of words. No ones knocking on your door to do anything. Please don't insult those who are.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I thought maybe you'd like to back your statement up.Read the rest of the post.

Very poor choice of words. No ones knocking on your door to do anything. Please don't insult those who are. ??? The quote was referring to media. Who around here was insulted?

[agricola]

demise,

that group is operating in the Kurdish controlled section of Iraq and the reports about it clearly suggest that it was being funded by Iran, not Iraq. there is no link there.

[CZ-75]

Read the rest of the post.





So, El Tejon found an example of a biased news report in the foreign press. Wow, what a surprise. I guess I'll just throw all skepticism to the wind now and believe everything the true, patriotic voices of Fox and Rupert Murdoch say. Because, obviously, if the Bolochistan Press is lying, then so is everyone else in the world except for those with red, white and blue tatooed on their butts.

Thank god for the British press, not perfect of course, but a lot less biased than the "in bed" reporting in the US press.


You're right. An excellent example of poor thinking. :D

A capital specimen of leaping to conclusions, and unsubstantive ones at that.

The only reason the British press seem "less biased" is that they match your leftward slant. :rolleyes:

[Gatsu]

I have't laughed so hard in awhile, that article was classic. The boycott Israel banner right next to the part where DU is sucking people's innards out through their mouths was icing on the cake. All This anti-american crap was really starting to make me mad. But the stupidity of that article mirrors the stupidity of the rest. Thanks for the laugh. :)

[agricola]

CZ75,

what i suspect Malone meant is that you can get a much wider coverage of the war from the British press in total than you do from the US. for instance, the Sun, Star and Telegraph are as pro-war as Fox is, the BBC have been very even-handed about this, especially on the TV where there has been almost no spin on events, and the Guardian and especially the Mirror have been anti-war.

where appropriate the UK press have asked the right questions, and they have endeavoured to find the truth behind the stories coming out of CENTCOM and the Iraqi Ministry of Information - which is in essence why three of the non-embedded UK press-men have lost their lives in this war.

[Dannyboy]

the BBC have been very even-handed about this

To quote CZ-75, "That's rich."

[gburner]

So we are killing non imbedded reporters to keep some vast conspiracy hidden???


Did they find evidence on who killed
JFK ?????:rolleyes:

[agricola]

gburner,

where in your terrorist-loving mind did you read that into my statement? the likes of Terry Lloyd died because they were seeking an independent view of the war and roved about the conflict area, just as he did in Bosnia and Yvonne Ridley did in Afganistan. that entails greater risks than being in the MoI in Baghdad or amongst Coalition units, as their deaths proved.

dannyboy,

what BBC coverage have you seen? they have reported from CENTCOM, they report from Baghdad and they ask the questions that need asking - why Umm Qasr fell nine times for instance. dont forget that this country is much more divided over this war and has a wider audience, especially the World Service, so its not going to be as American-centric as say, Fox.

[gburner]

Agri-cola....

The syntax in the second paragraph of your previous post indicated that your reporters were killed because they were looking for the truth behind stories coming out of CENCOM....

One could infer that you meant that they were deliberately killed for refusing to report the official version of events. As silly as your previous posts have been, it seeme obvious that conspiracy was your point.

BTW...the embeds that I have seen have been thru some wicked firefights with the troops they have accopanied. I would say that these folks showed a substatial amount of courage; not the insane stupidity and egotism that motivates one to go traipsing about by themselves in a war zone.:scrutiny:

[agricola]

gburner,

but what you would describe as "insane stupidity" is what journos should be doing out there - investigating the veracity of the statements made by both sides and reporting it accordingly. the whole "embedded journalist" thing is daft, and one of the reasons why the media have been in the main so abysmal in this war, because they only see a very small segment of the conflict - the "fierce resistance" that has been spoken of for instance - and assume that what is happening to them is happening elsewhere.

it doesnt suggest a conspiracy of any kind; Terry Lloyd and the others were finding out what was happening in Basra and whether or not what was coming out of CENTCOM was accurate, that is the job of a journalist.

[gburner]

Embedded or not...a reporter only has one set of eyes, therfore only sees a small portion of the war.

One of the reasons that our troops have reporters embedded is to show exactly, in real time, what is happening at a given spot. It frees the military up from conspiracy freaks who would swear on a stack of communist manifestos that we ran roughshod through an unarmed populace raping, murdering and destroying everything in our paths. In short, we're not the wanton killers of women and children that you think we are. If there are enough embeds over a wide range of scenarios, it tends to give a fairly accurate picture of events and has the effect of keeping everyone honest.

[agricola]

gburner,

the whole raison d'etre of the free press is to provide objective and impartial coverage of events and to report accordingly; an embedded journalist cannot act in such a way because he or she is strongly associated with one side and will (understandbly) develop a bias over time. they also cannot show whats happening in a given spot in real time because their rules of reporting (not giving away information useful to the enemy - ie locations and other tactical information) mean they cannot report such things, which is why we have seen the "reporting from near <insert location>" stories, with the real coverage delayed by at least 24 hours.

also i've never said that the Coalition were "wanton murderers of women and children", as you well know. where incidents have occured where a disregard was shown for innocent life i have commented, however, but this does not mean i am implying any kind of genocidal policy in Iraq by the coalition.

[Dannyboy]

what BBC coverage have you seen?
Over here we have a little thing called "The Dish." I can watch ITV, Sky, or BBC, although I try to limit it to Saturdays(football scores, you know). Then there is the BBC America channel. We do have more than Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.

[ahadams]

excuse me ag, you only provided evidence of one instance where a jury decided Fox had been lying on one particular occaision.

you can choose to generalize this if you wish, but without more data points, you're like the little boy who cried wolf when all he saw was a squirrel tail.

or do you actually have anything to back up you case? sounds to me like agricola is as reliable as the balochistan post....

[agricola]

ahadams,

first of its an incident of deliberate lying as a matter of station policy, second they defended their right to lie in court. that must make one scrutinize their reporting even more than one would normally. if you are going to champion yourself as a beacon of truth then you cannot go about fibbing and defending your right to tell whoppers now and again.

there is here only one incident of the Baluchistan Times distorting the truth, and yet you are damning the whole publication based on that one incident.

[ahadams]

yo! ag! of course they defended themselves in court - that's normal corporate procedure for any news agency. secondly, you have *one* station doing this, no indication whatsoever that this is not an isolated event. single data point again.

You are correct in that I should not have condemned the entire Balochistan Post for one bad report - in the same manner that you should not condemn an entire network for one station with bad judgement.

[CZ-75]

I fail to see how an anti-Magen David banner is indicative of anything but bias, at least on the subject of Israel.

[agricola]

ahadams,

if they hadnt championed themselves as the purveyors of truth, you'd be correct. the fact is they have, and their behaviour is like the politician who bemoans the state of famliy values while being involved in an affair. they could have settled that case out of court, or accepted the initial ruling, which would have isolated that incident in the way that you suggest, but the fact is they didnt and so must be viewed in light of that.

[Khornet]

the how do you explain the tenor of reporting from Vietnam? Thos reporters could really get around to just about any action they chose.

Today's 'embeds' are, to be sure, kept with one unit instead of roving. But they're everywhere. So while their individual focus in narrow, together they cover everything. Could it possibly be that the reporting is generally favorable because the truth is that we're fighting honorably?

Nah, couldn't be. If the reports make the US look good, they must be lying.

[Khornet]

Common Dreams? Why not just quote the Daily Worker? That site has no credibility at all, bud. It's Leftist Central. I hope you don't get your worldview from there!

Worse still, I hope you don't see it as 'the other side of the coin', as if the rest of the media are right-wing, and you have to go to Common Dreams for 'balance'.

[agricola]

khornet,

i'm sure thats how the embedded journalists see that, and indeed there is something to be said for having observers at all levels of the conflict. the problem is that what we are seeing is distorted, because the journos have not been providing an overview of events, instead concentrating on the exciting story as opposed to the "we rolled a hundred miles to Baghdad and met only surrendering people". the issue over the change of plan, fierce resistance met etc (which was seemingly only the unit that a reporter was with recieving fire) is evidence of this.

[agricola]

(edited double post)

[cordex]

the problem is that what we are seeing is distorted, because the journos have not been providing an overview of events, instead concentrating on the exciting story as opposed to the "we rolled a hundred miles to Baghdad and met only surrendering people". the issue over the change of plan, fierce resistance met etc (which was seemingly only the unit that a reporter was with recieving fire) is evidence of this.
Are you saying that an anti-military distortion (the bit about everyone dogging on the military leadership about a halted advance because one unit with an embedded reporter was taking serious fire) is evidence of a pro-US slant among embedded reporters?

[agricola]

no, its evidence of the uselessness of embedded journalists operating under the current rules. the bias comes later from the likes of Fox.

[Dannyboy]

the bias comes later from the likes of Fox.
The best part of this is that you like to hold up the BBC as a pillar of journalistic objectivity. Get real. Why not just admit that you don't like Fox because they are pro-America and you aren't? Or maybe it's because you don't like Rupert Murdoch.

[agricola]

danny,

the truth of what I am saying is in your statement:

Why not just admit that you don't like Fox because they are pro-America and you aren't?

if its pro-America it is not and cannot be impartial. compared to Fox the BBC is a model of journalistic integrity, and it is held up as one, especially the World Service, globally.

Oh and Rupert Murdoch's press does have a history of lying and deceit - just ask anyone in Liverpool what they think of the Sun newspaper.

[Malone LaVeigh]

there is here only one incident of the Baluchistan Times distorting the truth, and yet you are damning the whole publication based on that one incident.Actually, ag, the original post used the single data point to smear the entire non-American press. Furriners, that is. As in the whole rest of the world.

Common Dreams? Why not just quote the Daily Worker? That site has no credibility at all, bud. It's Leftist Central. I hope you don't get your worldview from there!Those were reproductions of the British press, which, if you paid any attention, you'd know was an illustration of the point I made in my post. That is, not all of the world press is so knee-jerk in reporting the government's propaganda. Thank god for Common Dreams for presenting the alternative.

as if the rest of the media are right-wingMost of the rest of the US media are boot-licking toadys to power.

[Dannyboy]

ag,
I never said Fox wasn't biased at all. But to call the BBC objective is a joke.

[Khornet]

Common Dreams is also a toady--just to a power you approve of.

Makes me think of the time Gen. McClellan came to the White House and found President Lincoln shining his boots. He said, "Mr. President! Don't tell me you shine your own boots!"

To which Mr. Lincoln replied, "Why, yes, General. Whose boots do you shine?"

[FPrice]

(from agricola)

"there is here only one incident of the Baluchistan Times distorting the truth, and yet you are damning the whole publication based on that one incident."

Hmm. Good point. Why don't we check the Balochistan Post more to see if this IS only one incident of distortion. Hmmm, how about a conspiracy between Israel intelligence, India, and the Russian-Jewish mafia?

http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=1847

Gosh darn! Where was this paper during the Nixon administration when we needed them? I think that I am going to stop reading all American papers and go overseas for all of my news needs. Imagine, I will get my news AND my global terrorist fiction all in the same reading.

:banghead: :what: :neener: