The Iraq thread 3

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]As much as I agree with you on the hardliner propaganda of Fox I must remind you that the article you posted is a "comment" not a "news-report".

Hardliner propaganda because fox news took more of a pro-american stand?

Quote[/b] ]FOX news is a right-wing propaganda outlet. I read it most often to get a good laugh. They are biased as hell and make no attempt of hiding it. It is in the same class as the Soviet Pravda used to be.

Do you know that some of their guests/hosts are liberal democrats? If they were a that kind of outlet, why would they let liberals have airtime on their station. Furthermore, why would they let people talk negatively about President Bush on their station. They even let 2004 presidental candidates come on their station to talk about themselves and why the people should vote for them.  

Quote[/b] ]the report revealed those who use Fox as their primary news source were "more likely than average to have misperceptions."

Bull-shit.

I think your missing the point. A news service should be as impartial as possible, and shouldn't be backing 'the winning team'.

Quote[/b] ]Hardliner propaganda because fox news took more of a pro-american stand?

What would you call North Korean news services? They are certainly Pro North Korea aren't they?

I would think people would have the intellegence to work with the facts they are given, rather then spoon feeding them the right titbits as its 'patriotic'

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]bull-shit

I am not sure billybob so I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.Have you by any chance forgot to post the link where it said the poll was a hoax?

Or you consider your one word answer sufice in front of a well respected organisation activating in your country such as Pepperdine Institute for Policy Analysis.  

linkie to article

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I hope the next time you start laughing and say AJ is biased you will bring something in support of your claim because right about now you are about as enlighting as Fox News.

I did post facts. Missed it?

Quote[/b] ]And the U.S.-led coalition says it has documented 34 instances last week alone of Al Jazeera hyping, misreporting or distorting events in Iraq.

[denoir 0]

Hardliner propaganda because fox news took more of a pro-american stand?

You make the mistake of thinking first that the American view point is the only 'true' one and that 'pro-American' and 'pro-Bush' are expressions that are readily exchangable.

Fox is pro-US. So is CNN. Al Jazeera and Al Arabya are pro-Arab. Both sides have different opinion. The relevant comparison is done by comparing them to a third, more unbiased party. Now there is no such thing as an unbiased party, but we can try to find a fair approximation. Let's look at BBC for instance. It certainly has a British bias (which is more like American and Arab bias) but I'm going to be nice to you and accept that we use it as some form of middle marker.

Now, do a comparison between:

(BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

(FoxNews)

http://www.foxnews.com

(Al-Jazeera)

http://english.aljazeera.net/

(CNN)

http://www.cnn.com/

Compare for instance their articles on the Falluja attacks. They all basically say the same thing, don't they? Or do they really? The contents is similar with some notable exceptions as well as the general tone.

You'll find that BBC is fairly in the middle. CNN is more on the pro-US side. Fox News not only is on the pro-US side but they skew their reporting. For instance instead of saying "President Bush", they say "the Prez" and so on.

Quote[/b] ]Do you know that some of their guests/hosts are liberal democrats? If they were a that kind of outlet, why would they let liberals have airtime on their station. Furthermore, why would they let people talk negatively about President Bush on their station. They even let 2004 presidental candidates come on their station to talk about themselves and why the people should vote for them.

So does AJ. As a matter of fact during the invasion I used to watch their web broadcasts because they interviewed both US and Iraqi officials and military commanders. It gave a balanced picture that very few western media outlets were able or willing to give. Especially Fox news.

The problem with AJ is the same with Fox: not the basic reporting, but the editiorializing and the skewed presentation of the facts.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I hope the next time you start laughing and say AJ is biased you will bring something in support of your claim because right about now you are about as enlighting as Fox News.

I did post facts. Missed it?

Quote[/b] ]And the U.S.-led coalition says it has documented 34 instances last week alone of Al Jazeera hyping, misreporting or distorting events in Iraq.

No, billybob, those are not facts. They are statements made by coalition officials who do not like what Al-Jezeera has to say. Coalition press statements are not an unbiased source of information. Fox news for instance in a good example of their bias takes coalition statements as facts. It is no better than taking al-Sadrs words as facts.

What Albert posted was the results of an independent inquiry. And that is the big difference. So disregarding what he posted as "bullshit" and then countering with a coalition press statement is not very convincing.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am not sure billybob so I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.Have you by any chance forgot to post the link where it said the poll was a hoax?

You forgot to post the people who watched the other "popular" stations (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) are to "have misperceptions". Each of those stations had more than 50%. Also, you forgot to add majority of american (60%) had at least one misperception.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, billybob, those are not facts. They are statements made by coalition officials who do not like what Al-Jezeera has to say. Coalition press statements are not an unbiased source of information. Fox news for instance in a good example of their bias takes coalition statements as facts. It is no better than taking al-Sadrs words as facts.

Thirty-four documated instances in a week that Al Jazeera hyping, misreporting or distorting events in Iraq is not a fact.

Quote[/b] ]So disregarding what he posted as "bullshit"

I posted bullshit because I do watch Fox News more than other news outlets (I must be that 20%)....................

Quote[/b] ]While telling half of the story is bad enough, there is substantial evidence that outlets like Al Jazeera are in fact acting in concert with terrorists to generate overtly false and misleading news reports. Colonel William Rabena, who commands the 2d Battalion, 3d Field Artillery Regiment Gunners in the Adhamiya region of Baghdad, related a scam coordinated between anti-Coalition elements and Al Jazeera in his area of operation. A gunman would go to the mosque, where Al Jazeera, as luck would have it, would be setting up. The man would open fire in order to draw fire from the Coalition. After he was inevitably taken down by the Coalition, a bystander would rush over to check his condition, and in the melee secret away the firearm. Al Jazeera then would swoop in for the story: Coalition guns down unarmed man in front of mosque! And as in Falluja, they would have the pictures to prove it.

[denoir 0]

I posted bullshit because I do watch Fox News more than other news outlets (I must be that 20%)....................

No comment  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]No comment  

I meant that I watch Fox News has my primary television news outlet. However, I do read The Washington Post (the least bias american newspaper on information about iraq, imho) and look at yahoo! news (AP, Reuters, and etc.).

[Badgerboy 0]

Why do you read a decent paper, then contaminate your mind with crap by watching a joke of a news station? Surely you have others to choose from?

Christ, the rest of the world laughs at Fox news!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

One of the most neutral and well reputed newspapers in the world is the NZZ (Neue Züricher Zeitung) Zürich/switzerland. Very sophisticated and insightful but quite boring!

Neue Züricher Zeitung (german)

[MLF 0]

Why do you read a decent paper, then contaminate your mind with crap by watching a joke of a news station? Surely you have others to choose from?

Christ, the rest of the world laughs at Fox news!

isnt it best to look at all the news stations and then make up your own mind, thats what i do. hey i even watch CCTV sometimes.

[Balschoiw 0]

Does this look like a precise strike to you guys ?

U.S. Forces Blast Falluja Targets After Deadline

Quote[/b] ]Fires light up the night sky as seen through a television night vision device as U.S. forces pounded sections of the Golan district in the Iraqi city of Falluja, April 27, 2004. U.S. aircraft and tanks blasted targets in Falluja, just hours after an American deadline expired for rebels to hand over their heavy weapons, witnesses said.

Quote[/b] ]

"I can hear more than 10 explosions a minute. Fires are lighting the night sky," one witness told Reuters as U.S. forces blasted sections of the Golan district of the city, scene of heavy fighting between Marines and rebels on Monday.

"The earth is shaking under my feet," he said. Television pictures showed two large fires some 150 meters (yards) apart.

The action, which lasted 30 minutes, followed hard on the heels of an assault by U.S. forces near the other Iraqi flashpoint city, Najaf, which spokesmen said killed dozens of fighters.

A terse U.S. statement said the fighting in Falluja, a city of 300,000 people, began with an attack on marine positions.

"Marines responded by directing precision weaponry against enemy forces in order to defend themselves," it said without giving any further details.

That´s just so stupid.

Najaf is also getting hot:

Quote[/b] ]HEAVY TOLL NEAR NAJAF

Near the holy city of Najaf, 64 fighters loyal to radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were killed hours after Washington issued an ultimatum to him to clear his militia and their arms from mosques there, a U.S. spokesman said.

Officials said 57 were wiped out in a single assault against a lone anti-aircraft gun spotted during clashes on the ground. A Sadr aide said only 19 of those killed were members of the militia.

It was the bloodiest encounter since the firebrand preacher and his Mehdi Army launched a brief revolt against the U.S.-led occupation three weeks ago before taking refuge in the city among Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrines.

Staff at two hospitals counted at least 23 dead and 34 wounded and said some of them did not seem to be guerrillas.

At the funerals of five people killed, mourners chanted "Long live Sadr!" and slogans against the United States and its allies on Iraq's interim Governing Council.

Adding to the U.S. burden, most Spanish troops in the occupying force who had been based in and near Najaf left Iraq on Tuesday in a withdrawal ordered by the new government in Madrid, where opposition to the occupation runs high. U.S. troops have had to replace the Spaniards in Najaf.

 

A Spanish government source said Spain would ask anti-war allies Germany and France on Wednesday to join a proposal calling for a U.S. exit from Iraq and a new international presence in the country.

You can waste it. But this shows that you can "overwaste" it also.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I dont get your point BALS? You didnt post a single argument why this is overwasted. Me personaly I am not capable to judge from all news right now whether the strike was accurate or not. Sounds a bit like you are making a prejudgement here. Hospitals reported 23 dead of which many did not "appear" to be "fighters". Now how do you judge that? I six year old boy is NOT a fighter, a women is NOT a fighter, but someone who does not APPEAR to be a fighter. Well if they are not sure they should not put it into the news.

I rather wait till I get more intel before I judge the american action. Besides, I am defending a rather IRON-FIST strategy than a weak "defense" one. In the end the US needs to gain back authority otherwise it turns much worse!

[Balschoiw 0]

The fighting is still going on Albert. It goes for over 10 hours now. They have combat helos over town. This is not the right approach in my opinion. This will only make them martyrs.

[denoir 0]

I dont get your point BALS? You didnt post a single argument why this is overwasted. Me personaly I am not capable to judge from all news right now whether the strike was accurate or not.

I saw on the news pictures of an M270 (MLRS) firing what looked like standard M26 rockets on Falluja. FYI each of those rockets (there are 12 of them) carry over 600 M77 submunitions. Yes, fragmentation cluster munition. It is not a precision weapon. Each of the M77's has an effective radius of 2-4m. You be the judge.

Not to mention that the M77's are incredibly crappy munition that have a very high failure rate: i.e they don't detonate on contact but lie around effectivly working as mines.

If the news was correct and the footage was really what they said it to be then they're fucking insane. That's all that I can say. They are using heavy artillery in urban combat.

[Schoeler 0]

It was 105mm fire from two AC-130 gunships, confirmed on MSNBC about one hour ago.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/27/iraq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Fallujah has been the site of fierce resistance to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. Pentagon officials said the strikes were in response to a threat to Marines there and were not the beginning of a new push against the insurgents.

"Marines responded by directing precision weaponry against the enemy forces in order to defend themselves," a military statement said.

Quote[/b] ]Columns of smoke rose from the area being bombarded, and the shelling appeared to have set off at least two large secondary explosions.

Stored ammo caused the seconday explosions because the two positions targeted on were used by insurgent?  

[turms 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/27/iraq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Fallujah has been the site of fierce resistance to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. Pentagon officials said the strikes were in response to a threat to Marines there and were not the beginning of a new push against the insurgents.

"Marines responded by directing precision weaponry against the enemy forces in order to defend themselves," a military statement said.

Quote[/b] ]Columns of smoke rose from the area being bombarded, and the shelling appeared to have set off at least two large secondary explosions.

Stored ammo caused the seconday explosions because the two positions targeted on were used by insurgent?  

I just cant figure out how someone can say with a straight face that these were some defencive actions.... The attack on Fallujah and Najaf were expected, and it seems it is beginning now with CAS, arty, and tanks moving in.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]I am not sure billybob so I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.Have you by any chance forgot to post the link where it said the poll was a hoax?

You forgot to post the people who watched the other "popular" stations (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) are to "have misperceptions". Each of those stations had more than 50%. Also, you forgot to add majority of american (60%) had at least one misperception.

so there is no chnace that there exits misperception of the media being "liberal"?

Billybob contrary to what you might belive,Al-Jazeera is one of the most unbiased news TV.

and contrary to both of you, both FOX and AJ have tendency to skew the fact like denoir said.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]and contrary to both of you, both FOX and AJ have tendency to skew the fact like denoir said

Can you please post a link that proves that about fox news.

Anyway, a CNN night show, newsnight with aaron brown (I think) did a report on arab reporting tonight (including). Nothing did not suprise me......

Quote[/b] ]I just cant figure out how someone can say with a straight face that these were some defencive actions....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4824213/

Quote[/b] ]NBC's Carl Rochelle, relaying information from Sites, reported that the Marine retaliation was not a resumption of offensive action but was an example of Marines defending themselves aggressively after being attacked.

Sites said the Marines responded to the attack with what they called “appropriate force.†He also reported that the Marines said the retaliation did not signal an end to the cease-fire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46162-2004Apr27.html

Quote[/b] ]To the west of Baghdad, the besieged city of Fallujah was mostly quiet until nightfall, when at least one AC-130 Spectre gunship fired on the northern Jolan neighborhood, where a Marine was killed Monday.

Marine officials said their forces in the neighborhood were fired on at about 10 p.m., and the airstrike began half an hour later, sending the roar of 105mm cannon fire echoing across the city. Under the terms of a recent cease-fire in Fallujah, the Marines are permitted to return fire when attacked.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]A US flying gunship has pumped shells into suspected militant positions in the Iraqi city of Falluja in one of the heaviest attacks since the siege began.

One witness said the earth had shaken beneath his feet as detonations succeeded at a rate of 10 a minute during the night.

US forces say their positions in the north of the city had come under fire.

Loudspeakers in some of the city's reputed 70 mosques broadcast verses of the Koran during the shelling.

The BBC's Jennifer Glasse, with US forces outside Falluja, said commanders described the action as "defensive in nature".

Now if it would of been a defensive action, why on earth are they calling it "defensive in nature" instead of defensive? And bombarding the city (filled with civilians) isnt a defensive action in any way you turn it. 105mm cannon fire from AC-130 cant be considered a precision weapon, and it was fired to the inside the city. Are the tanks there used as defensive weapons? if so against what?

As for the arab media thing you might want to read foxnews article about the situation, and compare that to Al-Jazeeras article Locate the propaganda from each and count whos telling more propaganda.

EDIT: the quote was from BBC

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]and contrary to both of you, both FOX and AJ have tendency to skew the fact like denoir said

Can you please post a link that proves that about fox news.

Tada!

notice your reply. you did not say "can you prove that either is skewing fact?", but rather "can you prove that FOX NEWS..."

in other words, you view AJ as the only one who skews the facts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86177,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

On today's edition of "DaySide" with Linda Vester:

Fallujah Raids: Brand new raids in the city of Fallujah (search) as U.S. Marines exchange gunfire with guerillas. But is this the major offensive our military leaders warn is in the works? We’ll ask retired U.S. Army Col. David Hunt, Fox News military analyst.

Plus, how will the continuing violence impact the June 30 transfer of power in Iraq? We’ll get insight from Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for Iraqi Governing Council Member Ahmed Chalabi.

Good News: It’s a story you’ll only see on Fox. A regular guy in California with a big heart is working with U.S. Marines to pull off miracles!

i won't even goto AJ website.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]A US flying gunship has pumped shells into suspected militant positions in the Iraqi city of Falluja in one of the heaviest attacks since the siege began.

One witness said the earth had shaken beneath his feet as detonations succeeded at a rate of 10 a minute during the night.

US forces say their positions in the north of the city had come under fire.

Loudspeakers in some of the city's reputed 70 mosques broadcast verses of the Koran during the shelling.

The BBC's Jennifer Glasse, with US forces outside Falluja, said commanders described the action as "defensive in nature".

Now if it would of been a defensive action, why on earth are they calling it "defensive in nature" instead of defensive? And bombarding the city (filled with civilians) isnt a defensive action in any way you turn it. 105mm cannon fire from AC-130 cant be considered a precision weapon, and it was fired to the inside the city. Are the tanks there used as defensive weapons? if so against what?

As for the arab media thing you might want to read foxnews article about the situation, and compare that to Al-Jazeeras article Locate the propaganda from each and count whos telling more propaganda.

EDIT: the quote was from BBC

105mm cannon fire from an orbiting AC-130 is indeed a very precise weapon, far more so than a smart bomb. The 105 gun is radar controlled, is direct fire and has much smaller explosive force.

The Marines called in the gunships after coming under heavy rocket fire from vehicles full of insurgents doing hit and run attacks. The gunships neutralized the vehicles.

It seems the insurgents took advantage of the ceasefire to rearm, regroup and reinforce their positions. So, yes it was defensive fire.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]i won't even goto AJ website.

That`s great of you Ralph.I think I am gonna get tired asking people to bring evidence to suport their claims.

But being a good fellow that I am I`m gonna help you as from strange reason you are reluctant in checking AJ Webpage

Quote[/b] ]

Fierce fighting has erupted in the restive Iraqi city of Falluja as US occupation forces strike the town with warplanes, helicopter gunships, mortar bombs and tanks.

Live footage beamed on Aljazeera showed the night sky incessantly lit up as strike after strike hit mainly the Golan district of the city on Tuesday.

Aljazeera's correspondent reported a heavy exchange of gunfire was also heard and several homes were on fire.

Amid the explosions, Quranic a recital could be heard over a mosque's loudspeaker, as a reminder to people to remember God at this time, the correspondent said.

He added that US marines were not only attacking from the air with helicopter gunships and warplanes, but ground troops were using machine guns and tanks as well.

There are reports that an AC-130 gunship aircraft fired multiple cannon rounds over the city. One report said the gunship fired 20 to 25 rounds at a time with explosions on the ground sending showers of sparks and flames into the night sky.

"I can hear more than 10 explosions a minute. Fires are lighting the night sky," one witness told Reuters. "The earth is shaking under my feet."

The fighting came hours after a US deadline for fighters in the city of 300,000 to hand over their weapons. More than 600 people have been killed since US marines besieged the city on 5 April.

Crazy arabs,checking Reuters and AFP before posting articles.  

Another article is pointing out how Al-Sadr has got wide support only from the poor people.

And they`ve stated that after Iraq gets independence they will not call US soldiers occupation troops,as they actually are right now.

They are not in any case gloryifing the Resistance fighters.When they reported about the dead civillians and interviewed the hospital director that was the greatest thing they ever did.US oficialls were praising their siege and said there were minimum civillian casualties while Al-Jazeera(the only TV agency that remained in Fallujah) was airing from the Fallujah hosptial showing an ambulance sprayed with bullets and graphical footage of dead victims quoting Iraqis that claimed they were the victims of US bombarments.

Biased indeed...