The Iraq thread 3

[Tex -USMC- 0]

It's called civil war, Avon. Scheduled to start (checks watch) July 1st.

[theavonlady 2]

@ April 29 2004,09:08)]It's called civil war, Avon. Scheduled to start (checks watch) July 1st.

Will it be on Fox?

[EiZei 0]

@ April 29 2004,09:08)]It's called civil war, Avon. Scheduled to start (checks watch) July 1st.

Will it be on Fox?

Not the uncut version im afraid.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ April 29 2004,09:08)]It's called civil war, Avon. Scheduled to start (checks watch) July 1st.

Will it be on Fox?

Just so long as it doesn't clash with the new American Idol season.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]AJ could have used "Coalition" or "US/UK", but they added "Anglo" which is a term used to describe an ethnic group. just using the term suggest that AJ is not free from its bias of "blonde, blue eyed infidels."

 

As a leading authority on transatlantic relations, Dr. Gardiner has advised the Executive Branch of the United States Government on a range of key issues, from the role of international allies in post-war Iraq to U.S.-British leadership in the war on terror. Dr. Gardiner’s policy papers are read widely on Capitol Hill, where he is regularly sought for advice on major foreign policy matters. He frequently briefs delegations of political leaders and journalists from across the world.

www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/10/i_ins.00.html

Quote[/b] ]But I do believe that we'll see growing U.S. global power in the 21st century. One of the most striking aspects, I believe, of the two years since September 11 has been the rise of not just U.S. global power but also I think British global power as well. We have seen the rise of Anglo-American global hegemony as demonstrated by the success of the Iraq war, the Afghanistan campaign, and I believe that we're likely to see the Anglo-U.S. alliance going from strength to strength in the next quarter century.

You are not making a great point for youself as the term has been used countless times by countless televisions

I would also like you to give me a sincere answer to this question as I am starting to think you are biased against arabs.If you would have read this article would you have thought of "blonde, blue eyed infidels"?

This is very important because as soon as you`ve read it on Al-Jazeera that was your first remark.

Quote[/b] ]read the quote I had last page. it said 'analyst' suggest that US/UK troops are using violence to justify their staying. If AJ was half a decent news organization, they would have worked to show that US/UK forces are NOT causing the violence or letting it happen, but by posting that 'analysis' AJ is purporting as if US/UK forces are ready to let violence happen, which is not true since TBA's intent was that they get out of Iraq ASAP, as long as the place is what they dreamt of.

They`ve just said "violence is an excuse for them to stay" nothing more nothing less you are just puting words in their mouth.If you would like PM me the link to the article so we could discuss it on fair grounds,for all I know it could be out of context.

Quote[/b] ]how about this?

there is an organization saying one thing, but is not the whole truth. then use that to claim the whole thing is something.

say for example, the line of logic would allow some moron to say "since OBL is form SA, and SA is an arab nation, therefore all Arabs are terrorist."?

absolutely not true. the group that is quoted is saying one thing, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is true. comparing to other wars, what is the amount of casualties suffered?

This is starting to get on my nerve:

Quote[/b] ]The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has said "Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist."

In 2003 alone, according to the CPJ's estimates, 13 journalists died in "hostile acts". Others died due to illness or accidents.  

If anyone is kind enough to point out where Al-Jazeera is comparing Iraq to other wars or where it atleast uses the word war it would make me most pleased

Comparing to the ifex article

Quote[/b] ]By CPJ's estimate, Iraq remains the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist. In 2003, 13 journalists died as a result of hostile acts-the largest such tally anywhere in the world. Six others died from illness or accidents.

Reuters protests U.S. military's treatment of journalists

Differance?

Al-Jazeera isn`t even directly blaming US soldiers and  gives detailed explanation of how the journalists died.I am not happy to repeat this but once again I don`t find your argument least convincing.

Quote[/b] ] could have gone on tyrade of racist remarks but i refrained from so. i beleive you can do to

I am sorry if I have offended you in any way.I also hope we can keep the discussion friendly and civillised

Quote[/b] ]"But some coalition ground forces "

Including General Tommy Franks the commander of the entire military operation in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]walking down the road, getting picked up?

Diffrent point of views.There is no way we could determine who is right as they both represent the US army,now is it?

Quote[/b] ]definitely. however i was making rebutal to the argument that prison is a secure place. I tried to show that there are instances when prisoner can overtake prison authorities.

Hardly a possibility when the prison is one of the most well guarded place in Iraq as there are political detainees and your guards are trained US soldiers armet to their theets who won`t think twice(as the article prooves) before they shoot you but as you wish,call it an insecure place,possible for rioting.

[Balschoiw 0]

U.S. Warplane Fires on Fallujah Targets

Quote[/b] ]U.S. warplanes pounded Fallujah with 500-pound laser-guided bombs Wednesday and Marines battled insurgents near a train station and in neighborhoods that had seemed to be quieting. American forces decided to delay potentially dangerous patrols into the besieged city.

The violence, carried on live television with images of fiery destruction, came as the United States was under increasing international pressure to prevent a revival of the bloodshed seen in the city west of Baghdad during the first two weeks of April.

"Violent military action by an occupying power against inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse," Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said. "It's definitely time, time now for those who prefer restraint and dialogue to make their voices heard."

Commanders in Iraq (news - web sites) said the Marines were responding to guerrilla attacks and that the military was sticking to a more than two-week-old halt in offensive operations to allow negotiations.

"Even though it may not look like it, there is still a determined aspiration on the part of the coalition to maintain a cease-fire and solve the situation in Fallujah by peaceful means," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said in Baghdad.

"What's going on are some terrorists and regime elements have been attacking our forces, and our forces have been going out and killing them," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld testily told lawmakers in Washington.

Guerrilla attacks broke out in at least three neighborhoods of Fallujah that had been relatively quiet during the past three days. And the U.S. response intensified: when a Marine was wounded, warplanes dropped 10 laser-guided bombs — most of them 500-pound bombs but at least one 1,000 pound — on buildings that were the source of guerrilla fire, Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said.

At least twice, AC-130 gunships opened up on guerrilla positions with their heavy cannons.

Throughout the day, the sound of each battle was heard — the rattle of gunfire and the thud of mortars — then came the noise that often marked Marine strikes to put an end to the fight: heavy explosions, raising flames and palls of smoke.

Guerrillas fired on a train station just outside the city's northern edge, prompting a battle in the Golan neighborhood, an insurgent bastion. Fighting also erupted on the northeast, southeast and in the center of the city.

The extent of the battle was difficult to gauge. Witnesses reported at least 25 buildings wrecked by fighting. Hospitals only counted 10 wounded Iraqis, but ambulances could not reach areas where fighting was going on, and residents reported large numbers of dead and wounded.

At the White House, President Bush (news - web sites) said "most of Fallujah is returning to normal."

Yeah Bush bomb them back to "normal"...

At least 10 500 pounders and 1 1000 pound bomb. Best way to pacify a city, not.

The marines delayed their patrols for onw more day. Well they didn´t delay the Iraqi police presence in town. They are already there waiting for the brave marines to show up. But they seem to have their pants full and prefer to level the town from the air. Very brave.

Meanwhile details on the abuse of prisoners surface:

Quote[/b] ]pictures that show Americans, men and women in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners.

There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English.

In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other. And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up.

...

Frederick is charged with maltreatment for allegedly participating in and setting up a photo, and for posing in a photograph by sitting on top of a detainee. He is charged with an indecent act for observing one scene. He is also charged with assault for allegedly striking detainees – and ordering detainees to strike each other.

...

Frederick says Americans came into the prison: “We had military intelligence, we had all kinds of other government agencies, FBI, CIA ... All those that I didn't even know or recognize."

...

“I saw things. We had to use force sometimes to get the inmates to cooperate, just like our rules of engagement said,†says Frederick. “We learned a little bit of Arabic, basic commands. And they didn't want to listen, so sometimes, you would just give them a little nudge or something like that just to get them to cooperate so we could get the mission accomplished."

Attorney Gary Myers and a judge advocate in Iraq are defending Frederick. They say he should never have been charged, because of the failure of his commanders to provide proper training and standards.

"The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating,†says Myers. “And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important."

Frederick says he didn't see a copy of the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war until after he was charged.

The Army investigation confirms that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not trained at all in Geneva Convention rules. And most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members.

So let me get this straight. They are not guilty because they were not briefed on the geneva convention ?

What a lousy excuse for torture and abuse.

It´s sick what they did and they have to get punished if you want to see the Iraqis on your side oneday.

I don´t need the geneva convention to recognize that torture in any form is not allowed nor human.

So if there is incompetent personel in Iraq´s prisons who torture inmates and abuse prisoners for their sick dreams they should be taken to prison themselves and treated exactly the same way as they did with POW´s and regular prisoners.

It´s disgusting.

[theavonlady 2]

Latest poll from Iraq:

Quote[/b] ]Poll: Iraqis Split Over Whether Iraq Is Better Off

Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:49 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Iraqis believe the ouster of Saddam Hussein was "worth" the hardships they have endured since the U.S.-led invasion, but Iraqis are sharply divided over whether the country is better off, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released on Wednesday.

Forty-two percent of Iraqis said they believe their country is better off since the invasion launched more than a year ago, while 46 percent said the war has done "more harm than good," the poll found.

The poll, with a sampling error of 1.7 percentage points, was conducted among 3,444 Iraqis throughout the country in late March and early April before the latest upsurge of violence.

Among the findings, the polls said that Iraqi attitudes toward foreign troops have hardened considerably.

When asked how they now view coalition forces, 71 percent of all Iraqis said "mostly as occupiers" while 19 percent said "mostly as liberators," the poll said.

By contrast, sentiment was evenly divided when they were asked their view of the foreign troops at the beginning of the invasion. Forty-three percent said they initially viewed them as liberators, while the same percentage viewed them as occupiers.

The new poll found that a third of all Iraqis said attacks on U.S. forces were justifiable; an additional 22 percent said such attacks are "sometimes justified, sometimes not." Only a quarter of all Iraqis said attacks on U.S. forces are "completely" unjustified.

Sixty-four percent of Baghdad residents surveyed last summer said they thought attacks on U.S. forces were either somewhat or completely "morally unjustified."

"One specific Iraqi complaint against U.S. troops is the widespread perception -- whether correct or incorrect -- that they have been indiscriminate in their use of force when civilians are nearby," said Gallup's director of international polling, Richard Burkholder.

According to the poll, 67 percent of Iraqis said they believe U.S. forces are "not trying at all" to keep civilians from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire. That is compared to just 11 percent who said they think the troops were "trying a lot" to keep ordinary Iraqis out of harm's way.

Despite an apparent shift in attitudes about the U.S.-led forces, the poll indicates that Iraqis remain ambivalent about the prospect of a swift withdrawal.

While 57 percent said they think the U.S. and British forces ought to leave in the next few months, 51 percent also agreed with the notion that recent attacks on civilians highlight the need for the troops to remain in Iraq. Fifty-three percent said they would feel less safe "if the coalition left Iraq today."

The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that has been running Iraq for the last year earned a poor appraisal from Iraqis. Nearly two-thirds said the actions taken by the CPA turned out worse than they expected at the time of the invasion.

edit: Gallup's Iraq poll page. Full report only available to paid subscribers.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]AJ could have used "Coalition" or "US/UK", but they added "Anglo" which is a term used to describe an ethnic group. just using the term suggest that AJ is not free from its bias of "blonde, blue eyed infidels."

 

As a leading authority on transatlantic relations, Dr. Gardiner has advised the Executive Branch of the United States Government on a range of key issues, from the role of international allies in post-war Iraq to U.S.-British leadership in the war on terror. Dr. Gardiner’s policy papers are read widely on Capitol Hill, where he is regularly sought for advice on major foreign policy matters. He frequently briefs delegations of political leaders and journalists from across the world.

www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/10/i_ins.00.html

Quote[/b] ]But I do believe that we'll see growing U.S. global power in the 21st century. One of the most striking aspects, I believe, of the two years since September 11 has been the rise of not just U.S. global power but also I think British global power as well. We have seen the rise of Anglo-American global hegemony as demonstrated by the success of the Iraq war, the Afghanistan campaign, and I believe that we're likely to see the Anglo-U.S. alliance going from strength to strength in the next quarter century.

You are not making a great point for youself as the term has been used countless times by countless televisions

I would also like you to give me a sincere answer to this question as I am starting to think you are biased against arabs.If you would have read this article would you have thought of "blonde, blue eyed infidels"?

This is very important because as soon as you`ve read it on Al-Jazeera that was your first remark.

So, if many people use the term "arabs" to call persians, that is ok? the term "Anglo" is a designation for an ethnicity. even your analyst makes mistake of calling Afghan war as Anglo war. I guess it's anglos that stopped Jordanian plot a few days ago?

Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights. If you are questioning my bias, just sit back and watch how i posted in two previous iraq threads.(i mean the predecessor to this one, not last two posts)

the terms that i found for AJ came directly from their website and I posted it first since you asked me to prove it. now that i supplied evidence, you are arguing that it was my bias that gathered the evidence, when in fact, you were asking for it under presumption that there were none.

Quote[/b] ]They`ve just said "violence is an excuse for them to stay" nothing more nothing less you are just puting words in their mouth.If you would like PM me the link to the article so we could discuss it on fair grounds,for all I know it could be out of context.

i'll send you the link.

Quote[/b] ]This is starting to get on my nerve:

Quote[/b] ]The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has said "Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist."

In 2003 alone, according to the CPJ's estimates, 13 journalists died in "hostile acts". Others died due to illness or accidents.

If anyone is kind enough to point out where Al-Jazeera is comparing Iraq to other wars or where it atleast uses the word war it would make me most pleased

Comparing to the ifex article

Quote[/b] ]By CPJ's estimate, Iraq remains the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist. In 2003, 13 journalists died as a result of hostile acts-the largest such tally anywhere in the world. Six others died from illness or accidents.

Reuters protests U.S. military's treatment of journalists

Differance?

Al-Jazeera isn`t even directly blaming US soldiers and gives detailed explanation of how the journalists died.I am not happy to repeat this but once again I don`t find your argument least convincing.

you should be worried that sometimes an 'unpopular' war that gets little coverage has more traggedy.

http://www.cpj.org/killed/Ten_Year_Killed/Intro.html

Quote[/b] ]The most deadly country for journalists during the last decade was Algeria, where 51 local journalists have been killed since 1994 (several more media workers have also been killed). Fifty-eight were murdered between 1993 and 1996 in the height of a bitter civil conflict that began after the government canceled elections in 1992 to prevent the Islamic Salvation Front from winning power. In response, religious extremists launched a brutal insurgency campaign that included targeted attacks on journalists, intellectuals, and other civilians. Militants are responsible for the bulk of the journalists' killings, but government security forces are believed to be responsible for a number of disappearances. Algerian authorities have failed to conduct a serious investigation into the deaths and have refused to allow independent international inquiries.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"But some coalition ground forces "

Including General Tommy Franks the commander of the entire military operation in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]walking down the road, getting picked up?

Diffrent point of views.There is no way we could determine who is right as they both represent the US army,now is it?

your article was dated on the date of rescue or so, which means preliminary reports were spotty.

my link to CNN article was a few days after that after all facts came in. there is a BIG difference betwwen walking down the road and getting picked up from a building.

Quote[/b] ]Diffrent point of views.There is no way we could determine who is right as they both represent the US army,now is it?

here's my take

Quote[/b] ]Diffrent point of views.There is no way we could determine who is right as they both[Chalabi, Sadr] represent the Iraq,now is it?

[theavonlady 2]

U.S. Says Has Rushed Tanks to Iraq to Crush Rebels

Quote[/b] ]Thu Apr 29, 2004 12:51 AM ET

By Fadel Badran

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military has rushed more tanks and other armored vehicles to Iraq after requests from commanders in the bloodiest month for American troops since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

"That armor is either (in Iraq) now or is arriving as we speak. So those requests were quickly filled," U.S. Marine Corps Major General John Sattler told reporters at the Pentagon by phone from the Gulf state of Qatar on Wednesday.

Sattler said the requests were made by commanders battling to stamp out guerrilla attacks in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" north and west of Baghdad, including the flashpoint city of Falluja where U.S. Marines launched new air and ground attacks.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights.

Ok Saddam is gone.

What else have the coaltion troops achieved so far ?

Hm...

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights.

Ok Saddam is gone.

What else have the coaltion troops achieved so far ?

Hm...

i'm sorry. maybe US troops pull out and Iraq will be better off?

let's face it. different groups now have freedom - freedom to curse at US.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights. If you are questioning my bias, just sit back and watch how i posted in two previous iraq threads.(i mean the predecessor to this one, not last two posts)

Well gee golly gosh Ralph, ya think? I especially like his most recent inferrence that US Marines collectively are cowards. By the way, Balscoiw, you never did bother to reply to my post pages back during our last little spat. Kind of a shame, as I was looking forward to refining my current dislike for you further.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights.

Ok Saddam is gone.

What else have the coaltion troops achieved so far ?

Hm...

i'm sorry. maybe US troops pull out and Iraq will be better off?

let's face it. different groups now have freedom - freedom to curse at US.

Maybe it's too soon to judge.

What if they succeed in getting rid of the Sadrs and the Saddam leftovers and a semblance of normalcy comes to Iraq, with its own government and freedoms that Iraqi have not seen in - well - some say a millenium or two.

Speaking of Saddam leftovers:

Quote[/b] ]Hussein's Agents Are Behind Attacks in Iraq, Pentagon Finds

By THOM SHANKER

Published: April 29, 2004

WASHINGTON, April 28 — A Pentagon intelligence report has concluded that many bombings against Americans and their allies in Iraq, and the more sophisticated of the guerrilla attacks in Falluja, are organized and often carried out by members of Saddam Hussein's secret service, who planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad.

The report states that Iraqi officers of the "Special Operations and Antiterrorism Branch," known within Mr. Hussein's government as M-14, are responsible for planning roadway improvised explosive devices and some of the larger car bombs that have killed Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners. The attacks have sown chaos and fear across Iraq.

In addition, suicide bombers have worn explosives-laden vests made before the war under the direction of of M-14 officers, according to the report, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The report also cites evidence that one such suicide attack last April, which killed three Americans, was carried out by a pregnant woman who was an M-14 colonel.

...............................

[quicksand 0]

So..here we go again...

Quote[/b] ]So, if many people use the term "arabs" to call persians, that is ok? the term "Anglo" is a designation for an ethnicity. even your analyst makes mistake of calling Afghan war as Anglo war. I guess it's anglos that stopped Jordanian plot a few days ago?

Heh,deffinetly not my analyst,again:

As a leading authority on transatlantic relations, Dr. Gardiner has advised the Executive Branch of the United States Government on a range of key issues, from the role of international allies in post-war Iraq to U.S.-British leadership in the war on terror. Dr. Gardiner’s policy papers are read widely on Capitol Hill, where he is regularly sought for advice on major foreign policy matters. He frequently briefs delegations of political leaders and journalists from across the world.

So the question is if such a figure uses the expression "anglo-US alliance" why shouldn`t Al-Jazeera be allowed to,because they are arabs?

Quote[/b] ]Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights. If you are questioning my bias, just sit back and watch how i posted in two previous iraq threads.(i mean the predecessor to this one, not last two posts)

Not nice to answer with a question.I`ve asked you something simple.When you`ve read the Al-Jazeera article at the sight of the expression "anglo-us" you`ve started accusing them of "blond,blue eyed infidels" bias.Would you have had the same feeling when watching Insight on CNN and hearing Gardiner using the same exact expression?Think of that for a second.

Quote[/b] ]you should be worried that sometimes an 'unpopular' war that gets little coverage has more traggedy.

Again you are avoiding what I`ve said with something totally off-topic.As in the Al-Jazeera article the are strictly reffering to what CPJ said,not using once the word war,or comparing it with other times and wars,only you did that.

Quote[/b] ]how about this?

there is an organization saying one thing, but is not the whole truth. then use that to claim the whole thing is something.

comparing to other wars, what is the amount of casualties suffered?

You still haven`t been able to explain this which is completly false.

Quote[/b] ]your article was dated on the date of rescue or so, which means preliminary reports were spotty.

my link to CNN article was a few days after that after all facts came in. there is a BIG difference betwwen walking down the road and getting picked up from a building.

Wrong again,12 hours between the articles.

Quote[/b] ]Diffrent point of views.There is no way we could determine who is right as they both[Chalabi, Sadr] represent the Iraq,now is it?

You are comparing General Tommy Franks the commander of the entire military operation in Iraq with Sadr or Chalabi as to how he represnts the US millitary  

Quote[/b] ]i'll send you the link.

Quote[/b] ]It is chaotic, or can be described as "well planned, well managed and well orchestrated chaos" according to Dr Salman Jumaily, an Iraqi political analyst and university professor.

He explained that the occupiers, mainly the US, had encouraged, if not planned deliberately to create, the current chaos so that the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and the occupiers can argue that the presence of US and UK military forces are required to deal with the chaotic situation and establish security in Iraq.

They are quoting an Iraqi political analyst using the words "according to him".It`s not Al-Jazeera opinion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Since we trust so much in statistics Here comes a pretty scary one from combined efforts of CNN, USA Today and the Gallup-Institute.

71% consider the US to be an occupational force

52% consider attacks against US soldiers as totally legal!

[theavonlady 2]

Since we trust so much in statistics    Here comes a pretty scary one from combined efforts of CNN, USA Today and the Gallup-Institute.

71% consider the US to be an occupational force    

52% consider attacks against US soldiers as totally legal!

Go back one page. Do not pass GO. Do not collect 200 Euros.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, Balscoiw, you never did bother to reply to my post pages back during our last little spat. Kind of a shame, as I was looking forward to refining my current dislike for you further.

I don´t care what you think. I answered your questions as long as they made sense and were related.

So what especially did I not answer to ?

And to speak honest I don´t mind if you like me or not. In fact it´s about the reality in Iraq and not your likes or dislikes.

I couldn´t care less what you think about me or anyone else. I just doesn´t matter to me.

Arguing for the sake of arguing maybe your style but not mine.

By the way I answered your questions on page 46 of this thread. If you can´t remeber it here it is:

Quote[/b] ]Quote

No, you didn't. What I said was that the thesis of your post was clearly an effort to disprove that statement.

No. Neither did I use the phrase, nor am I the father of this quote. It has nothing to do with my post.

Quote

I asked how you would feel. A little offended, maybe?

I don´t "feel" when it comes to my job. I would act like I already said. "Feelings" have nothing to do with my job. Maybe you´ll find out yourself someday why this is so.

Quote

However, you can know all you want, but if you can't prove it, spare the invective.

Well I can tell you the story and post it with the pictures I took. But this will give me at least a PR. That´s not worth it. If I remember right someone has already confirmed this story here at these forums.

Quote

"did you even read my post?"

Yes but you didn´t answer my question. Did you see the film ?

Quote

So what's the count at? Two examples shot down, and now you're falling back on anecdotal evidence that only you have access to. Shall we move on?

There is no count.I am not falling back. I said that I chose one wrong example in a hurry.Not two. I posted the right one and you can´t argue it away this time. If you think so you´re at the wrong place.

And what you call "anecdotal" is a big part of my life. Anecdotes are something funny to remember. I had no fun and people who got killed or injured failed to have fun also. So you are trying to make fun of it. There is no fun to be made about people getting killed.

I´ll gladly move on but I won´t accept such "playing down" things from a person who has no idea of what he is talking about and only argues to be winner of the "argueing" contest. You may think that you have to prove your ability to fullfill the "best debator" role, but you fail to argue things that can´t be argued away. You go personal while you should go on debating facts.

Don´t try to pull a stunt on me. If you can argue on a civilized level I have no problem. But if you are trying to discredit me you have to come up with more than false accusations.

Oneday you maybe will find out that persoanl feelings have nothing to do with arguing. As long as you can´t seperate that you will not be able to argue with others in a civilized way.

Once again. I answered your questions and you say I didn´t while it is proven I did.

If you lack of memory that is not my problem and I will not accept that you make it look the way you like only to discredit me. This will not be accepted.

[ralphwiggum 6]

So..here we go again...

Quote[/b] ]So, if many people use the term "arabs" to call persians, that is ok? the term "Anglo" is a designation for an ethnicity. even your analyst makes mistake of calling Afghan war as Anglo war. I guess it's anglos that stopped Jordanian plot a few days ago?

Heh,deffinetly not my analyst,again:

As a leading authority on transatlantic relations, Dr. Gardiner has advised the Executive Branch of the United States Government on a range of key issues, from the role of international allies in post-war Iraq to U.S.-British leadership in the war on terror. Dr. Gardiner’s policy papers are read widely on Capitol Hill, where he is regularly sought for advice on major foreign policy matters. He frequently briefs delegations of political leaders and journalists from across the world.

my point is that even person of such figure can fall to fallacy of ill-choosen words. I can say r-word, but does that mean it's correct? nope.

on isde note, you gotta wonder if this guy is credible given that he was giving advice to TBA

Quote[/b] ]Not nice to answer with a question.I`ve asked you something simple.When you`ve read the Al-Jazeera article at the sight of the expression "anglo-us" you`ve started accusing them of "blond,blue eyed infidels" bias.Would you have had the same feeling when watching Insight on CNN and hearing Gardiner using the same exact expression?Think of that for a second.

and who are you to say what is nice or not? i have my right to speech and so do you. if i want to ask you a question that is actually a rebuttal i will and can. I ask you a simple question too. are you anti-US?

if you ahven't noticed, the "blond blue eyed infidel" was part of context from my previous statement,

Quote[/b] ] just using the term suggest that AJ is not free from its bias of "blonde, blue eyed infidels."

the term is a metaphor.

Quote[/b] ]Would you have had the same feeling when watching Insight on CNN and hearing Gardiner using the same exact expression?Think of that for a second.

not really. i knew that some advisory for TBA is only slightly better job then being a prostitute

how about this.

Quote[/b] ]Would you have had the same feeling when watching AJ and hearing some american using <insert culturally insensitive remark> exact expression?Think of that for a second.

Quote[/b] ]Again you are avoiding what I`ve said with something totally off-topic.As in the Al-Jazeera article the are strictly reffering to what CPJ said,not using once the word war,or comparing it with other times and wars,only you did that.

Quote[/b] ]You still haven`t been able to explain this which is completly false.

how can this war be worst for journalist? what is standard to measure what a 'worst' is? think about that. my link provided that there are other wars that costed more journalists's life, thus showing that there is a big war. what is the measurement based upon?

Quote[/b] ]They are quoting an Iraqi political analyst using the words "according to him".It`s not Al-Jazeera opinion.

so then the weblogger whom avon linked is also a valid source since he is merely quoted by USA today.

Quote[/b] ]You are comparing General Tommy Franks the commander of the entire military operation in Iraq with Sadr or Chalabi as to how he represnts the US millitary

so Tommy Franks knows EVERY thing that is going on? in every organization there is that blasted while-noice effect, which can hamper delay of message sending. with that logic, Bush is the most informed person.

Chalabi is now the Iraq governing party member, and Sadr is a cleric who has supportters and is able to hold down a city.

are you suggesting that they are just no name nobody?

Quote[/b] ]Wrong again,12 hours between the articles.

so i guess no news is correctable after initial report, and that all info is available?

[theavonlady 2]

Since we trust so much in statistics    Here comes a pretty scary one from combined efforts of CNN, USA Today and the Gallup-Institute.

71% consider the US to be an occupational force    

52% consider attacks against US soldiers as totally legal!

Go back one page. Do not pass GO. Do not collect 200 Euros.

And here's the detailed PDF file from CNN.

[theavonlady 2]

Since we trust so much in statistics    Here comes a pretty scary one from combined efforts of CNN, USA Today and the Gallup-Institute.

71% consider the US to be an occupational force    

52% consider attacks against US soldiers as totally legal!

But look at this "bottom line" question:

Quote[/b] ]60. Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US, Britain invasion, do you personally

think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?

Yes, was worth it 61%

No, was not worth it 28

Don’t know 9

Refused 2

It would be interesting to know which factions the people who answered belonged to (Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, etc.).

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Let me ask you this question. Are you biased against US? seems like you always post something negative of what the US does, and never really post something that would be shown in good lights.

Ok Saddam is gone.

What else have the coaltion troops achieved so far ?

Hm...

Look at the responses to questions 19.1/2/3 in the poll, specifically the results column marked "within past four weeks".

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look at the responses to questions 19.1/2/3 in the poll, specifically the results column marked "within past four weeks".

Ok I did. What I see is a huge gap between "At all since invasion" numbers and "last 4 weeks" numbers. How can that be ? Magic ? Or just a flaw in the poll ?

Just compare the numbers:

78 percent lacked electricity since the invasion , but only 3 percent lacked electricity throughout the last 4 weeks of the poll. That makes no sense. Electricity has not been reestablished in vast regions of Iraq. People who have the money bought generators to compensate this.

But a 78 percent rating that drops to 3 is really not realistic.

All the numbers mentioned in the "4 weeks" section seem to be extremely low compared to the overall numbers from the "At all since invasion" thing. That significant difference can´t be explained with the efforts coaltion has done in recreating infrastructure. It looks very strange, don´t you agree ?

And keep in mind that even this poll does not represent the current situation as the disclaimer already tells.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, Balscoiw, you never did bother to reply to my post pages back during our last little spat. Kind of a shame, as I was looking forward to refining my current dislike for you further.

I don´t care what you think. I answered your questions as long as they made sense and were related.

So what especially did I not answer to ?

My post halfway down this page. (linked also later in this post)

Quote[/b] ]And to speak honest I don´t mind if you like me or not.

That's amply clear, as you've managed to repeat it three times in the space of two paragraphs.

Quote[/b] ]By the way I answered your questions on page 46 of this thread. If you can´t remeber it here it is:

Quote[/b] ]Quote

No, you didn't. What I said was that the thesis of your post was clearly an effort to disprove that statement.

No. Neither did I use the phrase, nor am I the father of this quote. It has nothing to do with my post.

Quote

I asked how you would feel. A little offended, maybe?

I don´t "feel" when it comes to my job. I would act like I already said. "Feelings" have nothing to do with my job. Maybe you´ll find out yourself someday why this is so.

Quote

However, you can know all you want, but if you can't prove it, spare the invective.

Well I can tell you the story and post it with the pictures I took. But this will give me at least a PR. That´s not worth it. If I remember right someone has already confirmed this story here at these forums.

Quote

"did you even read my post?"

Yes but you didn´t answer my question. Did you see the film ?

Quote

So what's the count at? Two examples shot down, and now you're falling back on anecdotal evidence that only you have access to. Shall we move on?

There is no count.I am not falling back. I said that I chose one wrong example in a hurry.Not two. I posted the right one and you can´t argue it away this time. If you think so you´re at the wrong place.

And what you call "anecdotal" is a big part of my life. Anecdotes are something funny to remember. I had no fun and people who got killed or injured failed to have fun also. So you are trying to make fun of it. There is no fun to be made about people getting killed.

I´ll gladly move on but I won´t accept such "playing down" things from a person who has no idea of what he is talking about and only argues to be winner of the "argueing" contest. You may think that you have to prove your ability to fullfill the "best debator" role, but you fail to argue things that can´t be argued away. You go personal while you should go on debating facts.

Oh I remember it. At least, well enough to remember that I replied to it and was ignored. In fact, just for the hell of it I went ahead and screencapped the whole thing for your perusal and enjoyment, in case you didn't feel inclined to check it out in the first hyperlink. Have fun (>100kb)

Quote[/b] ]Don´t try to pull a stunt on me. If you can argue on a civilized level I have no problem. But if you are trying to discredit me you have to come up with more than false accusations.

No stunt here. As for arguing on a civilized level, please refer to our last conversation and let me know if you think I'll get anywhere with that. And once again, I am not trying to discredit you- your reliance on propaganda, broad-based innacurate statements, not to mention your reliance on warmed-over rhetoric do a good enough job of that; false accusations are not something I need, not that I'd ever use them (unlike you. You routinely falsely accuse the US Armed Forces of myriad crimes for which you have no proof. Who's off-base here?).

Quote[/b] ]Oneday you maybe will find out that persoanl feelings have nothing to do with arguing. As long as you can´t seperate that you will not be able to argue with others in a civilized way.

Once again. I answered your questions and you say I didn´t while it is proven I did.

If you lack of memory that is not my problem and I will not accept that you make it look the way you like only to discredit me. This will not be accepted.

Don´t try to pull a stunt on me. If you can argue on a civilized level I have no problem. But if you are trying to discredit me you have to come up with more than false accusations.

Personal feelings have very little to do with how and why I argue- in this case my opinion of you just makes it a little more fun, that's all. I'd still be doing it I thought you were a stand-up guy. As for lacking memory, making false statements, trying to discredit you, etc etc, please refer to the above. That's all.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Look at the responses to questions 19.1/2/3 in the poll, specifically the results column marked "within past four weeks".

Ok I did. What I see is a huge gap between "At all since invasion" numbers and "last 4 weeks" numbers. How can that be ? Magic ? Or just a flaw in the poll ?

Or a flaw in your assumptions?

The invasion was over a year ago. That column of the question relates to the last 4 weeks.

That's indeed a huge 10-11 month gap.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well gee golly gosh Ralph, ya think? I especially like his most recent inferrence that US Marines collectively are cowards

Are you by any chance refering to the part where the US commander was glorifying the Marines for fighting like tigers?

Was my question does "calling air-support after the first shots fired" a inferrence that US Marines collectively are cowards?That`s just a plain fact Tex.And I don`t think they are cowards,they are using any possibly means  their high tech support has to offer to maximise Resistance losses and minimise their own.There is nothing cowardly about that as there is nothing heroic.

Shooting unarmed civillians on the other hand is.I was distincly reffering to the Marine in the AFP article and to his colleagues who did nothing to stop him.Not the the Marine forces overall.So get your facts straight.

Quote[/b] ]on isde note, you gotta wonder if this guy is credible given that he was giving advice to TBA

Glad we agree on

Quote[/b] ]and who are you to say what is nice or not?

I was just exercising my freedom of speach

Quote[/b] ]are you anti-US?

If you are asking if I am against US population as a whole,I feel most offended by this question but I am gonna answer it anyway which is way more then you did.I think being against an entire country for the mistakes of a gouverment is the most hateful and meaningless thing to do.In my life I`ve met quite many Americans and most were decent person with whom I had good times.

If you are asking if I am against US soldiers as a whole then again my answer is no.Many are doing a good job and are also victims of Bush deceiving agenda.They have been called to serve their country and are doing so.

However I am against soldiers who kill unarmed civillians,torture prisoners for their personal enjoyment,and destroy taxi cars to punish a man for stealing a pile of wood.This however belongs to another discussion.

If you are asking if I`m against TBA..Should we go there,even you seem to acknowledge the failures of your gouverment and deceptions used to manipulate the public

Quote[/b] ]how can this war be worst for journalist? what is standard to measure what a 'worst' is? think about that. my link provided that there are other wars that costed more journalists's life, thus showing that there is a big war. what is the measurement based upon?

Again it has nothing to do with Al-Jazeera being biased.it was CPJ statement and it was not talking about war.It just said that Iraq is the worst place for journalist to be in.They are talking about journalist from the present,and I don`t think they can time travell to other conflicts  

OK to be sure there will be no further missunderstanding I am gonna explain this as good as I can:

CPJ is an organisation that protects journalists and watch their rights and how they are treated.6 months ago they issued a warning that Iraq is the most dangerous place for journalists to be in.Using logics,who do you think they were refering to,if not to current journalists,noting the dangers they are facing in there,and maybe suggesting to others not to venture in the country.

Al-Jazeera took the story,using the exact words and not even mentioning Reuters warning that journlalists are not treated well by US soldiers.

Quote[/b] ]not really. i knew that some advisory for TBA is only slightly better job then being a prostitute

Glad we agree on that also,I used his words to proove that even TBA officials are using the expression "anglo-us alliance" and that it has no racist substract.

Quote[/b] ]so then the weblogger whom avon linked is also a valid source since he is merely quoted by USA today.

Hmm..remember this

Quote[/b] ]Is there a legitimacy to suggest that US/UK forces are letting the violence to happen?

Until I`ve asked you for the article you made it sound like Al-Jazeera was the one suggesting US is letting violence to happend forgeting everything about that fact that they were quoting an Iraqi.

Is the blogger opinion that of usatoday.com?Absolutley not.

Quote[/b] ]so Tommy Franks knows EVERY thing that is going on? in every organization there is that blasted while-noice effect, which can hamper delay of message sending.

He just stated what he knew after the soldiers were released.

Using your own logic:So Rumsfeld(the first who said they were rescued) knows everything going on?How is he more aware then the general who was actually in Iraq and briefed by the soldiers who found the POWs...