"declaration of war"

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 08 2003,21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

And the U.S. and Israel have what to do with one man's dream of owning nukes while his people starve?<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe he's paranoid.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 08 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

And the U.S. and Israel have what to do with one man's dream of owning nukes while his people starve?<span id='postcolor'>

about 37,000 US troops, 40million S. Korean population, loss of strategic place in far east, possible sales of nuclear technology that would endager balance in favor of Israel in terms of nukes, following instability in Mideast region, resulting in turbulant oil prices which will undoubtly affect already inflexible oil market dominated by inefficient SUV lovers which causes drop in consumer spending, taking profit margins of firms down further, causing recession that not only affects US but world since their expectation based on world economy went down, creating prolonged recession that make unemployments rise creating instability that will lead to scapegoating which will cause hostility towards foreign targets leading to more bias and misunderstandings causing more hatred towards each other, creating instability that increases armed conflict in both conventional and unconventional warfare.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 08 2003,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">possible sales of nuclear technology that would endager balance in favor of Israel in terms of nukes<span id='postcolor'>

We don't need no stinkin' nukes!

We have them already.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,16:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read this

Interesting stuff...<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. That was a very interesting badly balanced, completely biased read.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you're going to post links to works of political fiction, at least link to a Tom Clancy novel. <span id='postcolor'>

It's obviously that the author of that article is no fan of Bush, but I think that the points he makes are all valid.

Is it biased? I don't know. He does only comment on decisions that the Bush administration has done. If they are bad and he says that they are bad, where is the bias?

[bn880 5]

Come on people, connect the dots.

Israel wants the U.S. to go in to Iraq. More than the U.S. that's for sure. And if the U.S.'s political situation is compromized by NK, that's terrible news for Israel. Don't pretend you don't know Avon.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,21:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Come on people, connect the dots.

Israel wants the U.S. to go in to Iraq.  More than the U.S. that's for sure.  And if the U.S.'s political situation is compromized by NK, that's terrible news for Israel.  Don't pretend you don't know Avon.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes. The Zionist lobby has forced Bush to attack Iraq!

You know which thread you can put this sort of trash on.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 08 2003,14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> the CIA says. <span id='postcolor'> Oh yeah, at least it's not the FBI... Damn speculation, paranoya.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course, you know it's just paranoia and you know better.<span id='postcolor'>

You're not getting anywhere. Neither is Assault.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not getting anywhere.<span id='postcolor'>

You're right.

/avon nudges hubby to get up and make here another cup of tea

[bn880 5]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 08 2003,150)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,21:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Come on people, connect the dots.

Israel wants the U.S. to go in to Iraq. More than the U.S. that's for sure. And if the U.S.'s political situation is compromized by NK, that's terrible news for Israel. Don't pretend you don't know Avon. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes. The Zionist lobby has forced Bush to attack Iraq!

You know which thread you can put this sort of trash on.<span id='postcolor'>

What trash? What are you talking about. I never said anyone forced anyone else. Have you heard that Israelis and their leadership have an opinion on U.S. invading Iraq.? You can't break truth and facts.

EDIT: You know, I to often assume some truth or news has already reached the members in these threads and go to the next steps. Then I get pulled down into "GOT PROOF" of the basic blocks, well heck, I should? lol

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,22:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't break truth and facts.<span id='postcolor'>

Had you said that it would be beneficial to Israel for the US to attack Iraq, I would generally agree. Those aren't the words you used.

It would also be beneificial to Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and maybe Yemen and a few more neighbors to see the Bag Dad put six feet under.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 08 2003,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

And the U.S. and Israel have what to do with one man's dream of owning nukes while his people starve?<span id='postcolor'>

Lot's of stuffs. Politics is like weather, one small change can eventually trigger events around the world. And this relation is not even indirect.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 08 2003,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

And the U.S. and Israel have what to do with one man's dream of owning nukes while his people starve?<span id='postcolor'>

Lot's of stuffs.    Politics is like weather, one small change can eventually trigger events around the world.  And this relation is not even indirect.<span id='postcolor'>

Could you please be more specifically vague?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 08 2003,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,16:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read this

Interesting stuff...<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. That was a very interesting badly balanced, completely biased read.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you're going to post links to works of political fiction, at least link to a Tom Clancy novel. <span id='postcolor'>

It's obviously that the author of that article is no fan of Bush, but I think that the points he makes are all valid.

Is it biased? I don't know. He does only comment on decisions that the Bush administration has done. If they are bad and he says that they are bad, where is the bias?<span id='postcolor'>

That is where the author shows his bias. He goes beyond the simple explanation of the "facts," but interjects much of his own beliefs into the piece through cleaverly worded phrases including such words as warmongering, strident cheerleaders, and cockamamie to only name a few. That goes way beyond the needs of journalistic intent, and strongly into the realm of Op/Ed. No "journalist" should ever use words that express opinions or judgements.

That is why it is "biased."

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 08 2003,15:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,229)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 08 2003,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

And the U.S. and Israel have what to do with one man's dream of owning nukes while his people starve?<span id='postcolor'>

Lot's of stuffs. Politics is like weather, one small change can eventually trigger events around the world. And this relation is not even indirect.<span id='postcolor'>

Could you please be more specifically vague? <span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it, got to go for now...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,22:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt it, got to go for now...  <span id='postcolor'>

Me, too. CSI is on.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 08 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,22:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt it, got to go for now...  <span id='postcolor'>

Me, too. CSI is on. <span id='postcolor'>

Cooking, Seasoning and Indoors?

we all know Israel has a nuke.

anyways, everytime NK uses some rhetoric, it seems like we act up as usual. most profound way to end this is to get better coherent policy from natons around NK. and it seems like all the nations are leaning towards diplomatics solution. so i support it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is where the author shows his bias. He goes beyond the simple explanation of the "facts," but interjects much of his own beliefs into the piece through cleaverly worded phrases including  such words as warmongering, strident cheerleaders, and cockamamie to only name a few. That goes way beyond the needs of journalistic intent, and strongly into the realm of Op/Ed. No "journalist" should ever use words that express opinions or judgements.

That is why it is "biased."<span id='postcolor'>

No, but obviously the article's intention is not the pure reporting of facts. It's an editorial where the author gives his own view.

Well, ok, it is biased since the author expresses his own view, but I see nothing wrong with it if there is an objective reality behind it.

Say you read an article on the holocaust and the author says "Hitler murdered 6 million people". Would you have complaints against that? Say that it's biased and unbalanced because it shows Hitler from a negative perspective. I doubt you would. It's because there is an objective reality behind it.

Journalism without interjections from the reporter's side is useless. When you describe just the facts you can know one thing for certain: it's incomplete. To counteract that incompletion reporters (and human beings in general) draw conclusions, generalize and relate to other situations. Can it be objective? No way. It still however stands a better chance of relating the subject to our civilization's philosophy/moral/ethics then the reporting of facts has.

All information is incomplete and all opinions are biased. There is no way around it.

The relevant question to ask oneself is "What is his agenda?", "What has he to gain by writing that?". If you clear those out then you can start considering what he has to say.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 08 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is where the author shows his bias. He goes beyond the simple explanation of the "facts," but interjects much of his own beliefs into the piece through cleaverly worded phrases including  such words as warmongering, strident cheerleaders, and cockamamie to only name a few. That goes way beyond the needs of journalistic intent, and strongly into the realm of Op/Ed. No "journalist" should ever use words that express opinions or judgements.

That is why it is "biased."<span id='postcolor'>

No, but obviously the article's intention is not the pure reporting of facts. It's an editorial where the author gives his own view.

Well, ok, it is biased since the author expresses his own view, but I see nothing wrong with it if there is an objective reality behind it.

Say you read an article on the holocaust and the author says "Hitler murdered 6 million people". Would you have complaints against that? Say that it's biased and unbalanced because it shows Hitler from a negative perspective. I doubt you would. It's because there is an objective reality behind it.

Journalism without interjections from the reporter's side is useless. When you describe just the facts you can know one thing for certain: it's incomplete. To counteract that incompletion reporters (and human beings in general) draw conclusions, generalize and relate to other situations. Can it be objective? No way. It still however stands a better chance of relating the subject to our civilization's philosophy/moral/ethics then the reporting of facts has.

All information is incomplete and all opinions are biased. There is no way around it.

The relevant question to ask oneself is "What is his agenda?", "What has he to gain by writing that?". If you clear those out then you can start considering what he has to say.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, Denoir. This was the dumbest post I've ever seen you write. Take that as a compliment.

Must've been a rough day, with PM Persson's divorce and what not.

[theavonlady 2]

As you can see, CSI is over.

Oh........................ The Practice is on!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 08 2003,22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sorry, Denoir. This was the dumbest post I've ever seen you write.<span id='postcolor'>

It's very possible, I'm quite tired

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 08 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is where the author shows his bias. He goes beyond the simple explanation of the "facts," but interjects much of his own beliefs into the piece through cleaverly worded phrases including such words as warmongering, strident cheerleaders, and cockamamie to only name a few. That goes way beyond the needs of journalistic intent, and strongly into the realm of Op/Ed. No "journalist" should ever use words that express opinions or judgements.

That is why it is "biased."<span id='postcolor'>

No, but obviously the article's intention is not the pure reporting of facts. It's an editorial where the author gives his own view.

Well, ok, it is biased since the author expresses his own view, but I see nothing wrong with it if there is an objective reality behind it.

Say you read an article on the holocaust and the author says "Hitler murdered 6 million people". Would you have complaints against that? Say that it's biased and unbalanced because it shows Hitler from a negative perspective. I doubt you would. It's because there is an objective reality behind it.

Journalism without interjections from the reporter's side is useless. When you describe just the facts you can know one thing for certain: it's incomplete. To counteract that incompletion reporters (and human beings in general) draw conclusions, generalize and relate to other situations. Can it be objective? No way. It still however stands a better chance of relating the subject to our civilization's philosophy/moral/ethics then the reporting of facts has.

All information is incomplete and all opinions are biased. There is no way around it.

The relevant question to ask oneself is "What is his agenda?", "What has he to gain by writing that?". If you clear those out then you can start considering what he has to say.<span id='postcolor'>

No no no....I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying.

Saying "Hitler murdered 6 million people" would not be biased because there is hard evidence to back it up, it is verifiable, and you didn't add "Warmongering Hitler killed 6 million people."

Naturally a journalist and any human will have their views. The task of the journalist is to not let their views enter into their writing, even if it is something they feel strongly about. This journalist failed this completely. Journalism with interjections of their views is completely useless and not the point of journalism. The job of the journalist is to report news (as they can report it) and not influence people (that is why the Yellow Journalism era is so vilefied. It started a war.).

Had this been under the "Op/Ed" heading and not the "News" heading it would be one thing. Clearly this piece is an opinion, and should not be labeled as "News."

[edc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Journalism without interjections from the reporter's side is useless<span id='postcolor'>

It the reporters job to tell the public the facts so that the viewers/readers can form their opinions off it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,22:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Had this been under the "Op/Ed" heading and not the "News" heading it would be one thing. Clearly this piece is an opinion, and should not be labeled as "News."<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, in that case I agree with you

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 08 2003,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,22:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Had this been under the "Op/Ed" heading and not the "News" heading it would be one thing. Clearly this piece is an opinion, and should not be labeled as "News."<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, in that case I agree with you <span id='postcolor'>

Yep, I agree as well, I hate it when reporters (whole news agencies) throw in their point of view or their spin on facts... I only require the facts, and maybe some opinion from the reporter in the field afterwards, but that should be made clear that it is his/her interpretation.

Unfortunately, most news I see here, especially CNN are unable to report anything without opinion, if they don't spin it, they use the wrong terms, biased to local opinions.

[bn880 5]

NK wants SK on it's side