Another side of the Iraqi war

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Well I hope your fact-gathering is better than in this thread.

Still working on the Iraqi Christians. It's very hard to find good information on the internet that either 1. Doesn't come from religious Christian site and 2. Doesn't come from some wierd "news" service that nobody has ever heard of. So I hesitate in posting anything from those two types of sources.

What I can gather so far is that it's not as black and white as you want everyone here to believe. Christians may have been "tolerated" but that's about as far as it goes. Muslims in just about every instance were given preferential treatment over Christians. Estimates seem to range from between 200,000 and 500,000 Iraqi Christians leaving the country after the first Gulf War because of various things from discrimination to poverty to war.

I'll keep reading up on them, as it's actually quite interesting how far back their history goes. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance though, and that is what I can gather so far.

As far as the power vacuum goes, I just don't see much of one. I could be wrong of course, but the people in Fallujah seem to know what they want and have taken that course of action. It seems to me they are unwilling to boot the terrorists who came from outside the country. They have set up their own power structure after the fall of Saddam...

Anyway, that's what I've got for now.

 

[Virgo]

Acceptance
-----------
Tolerance
----------
----------
----------
----------
----------
Murder

 

[Brondbyfan]

Doesn't come from some wierd "news" service that nobody has ever heard of. So I hesitate in posting anything from those two types of sources.

You have posted at least a half dozen articles from the Drudge Report, and have also posted articles from the Moonie-Cult operated Washington Times and the incredibly far-right Cybercast News Services. And now you're trying to act like you're incredibly devoted to honest journalism and reputable sources.

You really are a pathological liar, aren't you? You can't stop yourself from lying, can you?

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan


You have posted at least a half dozen articles from the Drudge Report, and have also posted articles from the Moonie-Cult operated Washington Times and the incredibly far-right Cybercast News Services. And now you're trying to act like you're incredibly devoted to honest journalism and reputable sources.

You really are a pathological liar, aren't you? You can't stop yourself from lying, can you?

Ever heard of the "truth" news service? Neither have I... And the Washington Times is actually a respected newspaper, just as the far left New York Times is. And I beg you to show me one piece of news that I have posted from the Drudge Report that was false. I on my my knees Brondby giving John Kerry a blowjob style to do it. Come on smartass, show me! Get off your knees long enough to do it... can't? Didn't think so. You just dismiss these news sources outright because you don't agree with them. You would rather take your news from moveon.org and the democratic underground. You're such a hyprocite ****.

Now get back on your knees and bugger the hell off.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
Still working on the Iraqi Christians. It's very hard to find good information on the internet that either 1. Doesn't come from religious Christian site and 2. Doesn't come from some wierd "news" service that nobody has ever heard of. So I hesitate in posting anything from those two types of sources.

What I can gather so far is that it's not as black and white as you want everyone here to believe. Christians may have been "tolerated" but that's about as far as it goes. Muslims in just about every instance were given preferential treatment over Christians. Estimates seem to range from between 200,000 and 500,000 Iraqi Christians leaving the country after the first Gulf War because of various things from discrimination to poverty to war.

I'll keep reading up on them, as it's actually quite interesting how far back their history goes. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance though, and that is what I can gather so far.

As far as the power vacuum goes, I just don't see much of one. I could be wrong of course, but the people in Fallujah seem to know what they want and have taken that course of action. It seems to me they are unwilling to boot the terrorists who came from outside the country. They have set up their own power structure after the fall of Saddam...

Anyway, that's what I've got for now.

Everything you just wrote regarding Christians in Iraq actually confirms what I had already written. I never said it was a black-and-white case of Christians being accepted - in fact I pointed out that things were done to the benefit of Sunni muslims - don't make the mistake of grouping all muslims under the same umbrella, the Shia suffered more than anyone else.

If you look at your earlier postings, it was YOU making the case for a black-and-white situation, and it was me pointing out it was much more complex.

As for the power vacuum, as long as their is no central government with popular support, I can't think of a better term.

 

[Brondbyfan]

And I beg you to show me one piece of news that I have posted from the Drudge Report that was false. I on my my knees Brondby giving John Kerry a blowjob style to do it.

Are you ready to be humiliated yet again? Are you ready to be exposed as the arrogant liar you are again? Here it comes. You posted this in the Debate topic:

DEBATE MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?

And of course, if he pulled out anything, which isn't clear, it was a pen. So yes, you have posted a Drudge story that was false.

You're such a Bush administration admirer that you're actually starting to talk like them. You deny statements and actions that you obviously said/did. This little embarrassment is just like when Bush said "I didn't say I'm not concerned about Osama" or when Cheney said "I have never suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11" or when Rumsfeld said "I'd like to see where i said imminent threat." And then they were humiliated because of course they did say all of those things, and they knew it full well, they just can't stop themselves from lying. Just like you Elder.

Also, the idea that the Washington Times is as respected as the New York Times, or that the New York Times is "far-left," is another lie.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Are you ready to be humiliated yet again? Are you ready to be exposed as the arrogant liar you are again? Here it comes. You posted this in the Debate topic:

DEBATE MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?

And of course, if he pulled out anything, which isn't clear, it was a pen. So yes, you have posted a Drudge story that was false.

You're such a Bush administration admirer that you're actually starting to talk like them. You deny statements and actions that you obviously said/did. This little embarrassment is just like when Bush said "I didn't say I'm not concerned about Osama" or when Cheney said "I have never suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11" or when Rumsfeld said "I'd like to see where i said imminent threat." And then they were humiliated because of course they did say all of those things, and they knew it full well, they just can't stop themselves from lying. Just like you Elder.

Also, the idea that the Washington Times is as respected as the New York Times, or that the New York Times is "far-left," is another lie.

Haha... nice try, but you failed. Nowhere in that story does it say from Matt Drudge that he pulled a cheat sheet out of his pocket. It says there might have been "folded paper" and later on goes on to say it might have been a pen. By the rules, he wasn't allowed to bring even a pen, so Drudge wasn't lying. This was a story that was covered on CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, etc. etc. etc. And afterwards, Drudge posted links showing such stories that it wasn't a cheat sheet. It's easy for you to take a snapshot on a website and accuse the guy of "lying." If you listened to his radio show after that incident you might have heard him making fun of people who had edited the video to make it look like he DID have paper.


Here's a snapshot of Drudge headline from the day after that story... make sure you look closely at that section regarding the "cheat sheet" and "or was it a pen"?

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/04/20041004_130002.htm

Now then, care to try again?

And care to explain to me how the New York Times isn't far left? Just about the whole country besides you knows that fact. Damn.

 

[henry#14]

Re: Another side of the Iraqi war

Would you guys cut it out? I mean, wtf:

Originally posted by me
Also the purpose of this thread is not for some ignoramus to come and start attacking all Iraqis and Muslims, so if that's what you want to do just don't post.

you know what, I think someone should close this thread, there's already another thread where you guys can argue all this political nonsense

 

[Brondbyfan]

Oh, I see. Since Drudge posted in big capital letters "DID KERRY HAVE A CHEAT SHEET?" and then in little letters "or a pen," it's not a false article. While I would of course disagree with your legalistic bickering about the bullsh!t article from Drudge you posted, because the fact is you said you didn't post an article from Drudge that was false and that assertion is false, I think you're missing the point of where this discussion came from.

My point was that the vast majority of your sources are non-credible right-wing propaganda. And it would seem to me that posting an article slamming Kerry, implying which is plainly not true, is not at all responsible journalism. There's simply no evidence suggesting that was a cheat sheet. None at all. Can you imagine how much bitching from you we'd have to put up with if the "far-left" New York Times posted a front-page headline like this?

DID BUSH PLAN THE 9/11 ATTACKS?
[size=-1]or was it Osama bin Laden?[/size]

Of course you wouldn't be defending the NYT with lines like "Well they were just asking a question that has no evidence to support it, there's no dishonesty or evidence of left-bias there."

The reason you love Drudge so much is because he posts things which are obviously not true, things which coincide with your fanatical raging hatred of left-leaning and left-of-center individuals, but he hedges his bets in a cowardly way which allows him and you and other right-wingers to say "Well he's just asking if Kerry used a cheat sheet." As I said in connection with the Michelle Malkin "Some people are saying Kerry shot himself on purpose to get a medal" tiff, it's even worse than just lying, because it's not just dishonest, it also shows you don't even have the guts to stand behind your sources. You're desperate to post anything against Kerry, but so dishonest that you don't care where it comes from, and so cowardly you won't stand behind it.

It's all part of a big cycle of yellow-bellied Republicans: irreputable Republican agents like Drudge and the Swift Boat Liars invent stories, more credible but dishonest Republicans like Bob Dole say "Well, people are saying . . .", and crazed Republican supporters with no respect for truth and no fact-checking abilities like Elder recite said lies ad-nauseum.

Finally, the NYT editorial pages are home to such right-wingers as William Safire and David Brooks. Why would a "far-left" institution give such a prominent soap-box to conservatives?

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan



Finally, the NYT editorial pages are home to such right-wingers as William Safire and David Brooks. Why would a "far-left" institution give such a prominent soap-box to conservatives? [/B]

And left wingers like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd... you're such a hypocrite. .

I just made you look like a fool, admit it.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Yes, there are left-of-center columnists. There are also right-wing columnists. That's called "balance." Since you watch Fox News, where the vast majority of guests and hosts are rightists, I'm not surprised you are unfamiliar with the concept.

You asked me, in fact begged me, to cite an instance where you posted a story from Drudge that was false. And there it is, an article where Drudge asserted Kerry used a cheat-sheet, which is not true. Hence, a false story. Then you try and weasel out of it by saying "Well, he didn't SAY Kerry used a cheat sheet, kind of, exactly, those words . . ." But you seem to have forgotten the original context of this argument, which is that far and away, the majority of your sources are untrustworthy right-wing hacks. And since your defense revolves around the fact that Drudge posted a story with a misleading headline designed to smear John Kerry and offered no evidence to support it, but didn't even have the guts to stand by this assertion, I don't see how you can argue that this somehow doesn't prove Drudge is more than a Bushist agent with no integrity.

So you did post a false story from Drudge, but more importantly, you proved your sources are not credible.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Yes, there are left-of-center columnists. There are also right-wing columnists. That's called "balance." Since you watch Fox News, where the vast majority of guests and hosts are rightists, I'm not surprised you are unfamiliar with the concept.

You asked me, in fact begged me, to cite an instance where you posted a story from Drudge that was false. And there it is, an article where Drudge asserted Kerry used a cheat-sheet, which is not true. Hence, a false story. Then you try and weasel out of it by saying "Well, he didn't SAY Kerry used a cheat sheet, kind of, exactly, those words . . ." But you seem to have forgotten the original context of this argument, which is that far and away, the majority of your sources are untrustworthy right-wing hacks. And since your defense revolves around the fact that Drudge posted a story with a misleading headline designed to smear John Kerry and offered no evidence to support it, but didn't even have the guts to stand by this assertion, I don't see how you can argue that this somehow doesn't prove Drudge is more than a Bushist agent with no integrity.

So you did post a false story from Drudge, but more importantly, you proved your sources are not credible.

Can you read? There is nowhere in that story that Drudge states he has a cheat sheet. How can you not see that? Please, go and read the story again. Then, go get a glass of water, let it digest, and read it again. There is no line in that story that says he has a cheat sheet. And why, if he was trying to say he had a cheat sheet, would he bother to post stories on his website that give different views of what it could have been? Why would he ask if it was "a pen" in the same story if he was saying he definitely had a cheat sheet???? JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! I've caught you twice now, one with this story and one with the CBS story, and you just can't bring yourself to admit your blunder.

Rhizome: You see what I am talking about?

I am not going to argue with you anymore on bias in the media. You are so confused and hell bent on only believing what you want to believe, that it's not worth my time. I have decided to pick my battles a little better since it's always 4 on 1 around here. And since you can never admit you are wrong about anything... you are the smartest person on the planet I have come to learn... I won't bother.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Like I said, legalistic bickering about whether Drudge actually flat out came and said that Kerry used a cheat-sheet (although that assertion is in the headline, and Drudge purposefully left out pictures which proved it was not a cheat-sheet) is irrelevant. Your point is that Drudge is a credible source. But the headline of his story made an assertion that was not true, and he was so journalistically corrupt that he would spread that headline and "story" around the internet knowing it was clearly not true. That's not credibility. Manufacturing a story you know to be false, and being too cowardly to even stand behind it, is not journalism. It's partisan hackery.

You didn't respond to one of my points though. What would you say if the New York Times posted that headline "Did Bush Plan 9/11?" Would you defend that as "not untrue?"

And if this left-wing bias is so obvious, why haven't you been able to provide any credible evidence of it?

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder

Rhizome: You see what I am talking about?

To an extent. But thats because I am more concerned about forged documents being used by a government to prosecute a war, than I am by a mega-corporate media institution using them to pursue profits. I don't buy the argument that the mainstream media has a liberal or a conservative bias, just a ratings/selling/profit bias. CBC/CNN/NBC/ABC whatever, they are all the same old crap. None of them did their job in asking the tough questions before the war, there was no liberal bias happening then.

THe whole argument is a waste of time.
THe entire mainstream media ignored the inconsistencies that were spouted forth, they all failed.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
To an extent. But thats because I am more concerned about forged documents being used by a government to prosecute a war, than I am by a mega-corporate media institution using them to pursue profits. I don't buy the argument that the mainstream media has a liberal or a conservative bias, just a ratings/selling/profit bias. CBC/CNN/NBC/ABC whatever, they are all the same old crap. None of them did their job in asking the tough questions before the war, there was no liberal bias happening then.

THe whole argument is a waste of time.
THe entire mainstream media ignored the inconsistencies that were spouted forth, they all failed.

I am with you in the profit driven bias. I actually see the news outlets catering to one side or the other these days. The New York Times, based out of a very liberal state, obviously targets people who lean left. Same goes with the LA times out west. Washington Times targets people who are to the right, while the Washington Post goes left. The problem with the media is the need to make money.

Regarding the question being asked by the major news outlets. They were asked, but by the info provided by the world regarding Iraq, it seemed like a slam dunk. However, I don't see them actually asking many tough questions now that the truth is out.

 

[Brondbyfan]

The New York Times, based out of a very liberal state

The liberal state with the Republican governor and the city with the Republican mayor? In fact, did you know the NYT endorsed that Republican governor? The Seattle Times, which I am sure you think is leftist, endorsed the Republican for governor in this state. Damned liberals.

The profit-driven media theory is true in some cases. But in some cases the right-wing bias is so pervasive that profits take a back seat. Look at the recent fiasco involving Sinclair, who for those you of you not familiar with this, are a rightist media conglomerate that have decided to force their affiliates to pre-empt regular programming to air an hour-long anti-Kerry smear right before the election. This is a violation of FCC equal time regulations. The company's stock has plummeted, losing 13% of its already poorly rated stock.

So when the liberal paper Elder is raving against is endorsing the Republican candidate for governor in their state, and the conservative media is handing their shareholders a 90 million dollar loss in order to carry out their pro-Bush agenda, I think we're seeing a difference in the degree of bias.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
The liberal state with the Republican governor and the city with the Republican mayor? In fact, did you know the NYT endorsed that Republican governor? The Seattle Times, which I am sure you think is leftist, endorsed the Republican for governor in this state. Damned liberals.

The profit-driven media theory is true in some cases. But in some cases the right-wing bias is so pervasive that profits take a back seat. Look at the recent fiasco involving Sinclair, who for those you of you not familiar with this, are a rightist media conglomerate that have decided to force their affiliates to pre-empt regular programming to air an hour-long anti-Kerry smear right before the election. This is a violation of FCC equal time regulations. The company's stock has plummeted, losing 13% of its already poorly rated stock.

So when the liberal paper Elder is raving against is endorsing the Republican candidate for governor in their state, and the conservative media is handing their shareholders a 90 million dollar loss in order to carry out their pro-Bush agenda, I think we're seeing a difference in the degree of bias.

Are you talking about Bloomberg? He is no Republican... And if youa re talking about Guilani, it's because he cleaned that trash heap of a city up during the 90's. You failed to mention the blistering attack on Bush in the John Kerry endorsement for President...

Don't know much about the Seattle Times.

As far as the Sinclair thing goes, we live in a free country. In a free country, a broadcast company can do whatever it wants. I see no problem with that at all... If the public perceives what Sinclair wanted to do as wrong, then corrective measures can be taken, by the public, to let Sinclair know what they think. In this case, if what you say is true and the stock is down, then the public did it's job. It's not up to you or the government to decide what a broadcast company can or cannot show.

The same actually goes for newspapers. I can remember numerous instances of the NYT being boycotted for their coverage, as well as the LA Times. I think the LA Times was last boycotted during Arnolds run for governor, and the NYT has been boycotted for it's slanted coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian situation quite a few times.

Let the public decide... these "equal time" things are garbage and a way for the left to silence speech they don't want the public to hear. Notice that Kerry sent out his lawers to silence this speech...

 

[Brondbyfan]

I was talking about Pataki, the Governor, as well as Bloomberg, who was the Republican candidate for mayor. Did you not know that or something? And since you mentioned Giuliani, they endorsed him too. That's a whole lot of Republican endorsements for a paper you described as "far-left."

It's not up to you or the government to decide what a broadcast company can or cannot show . . . these "equal time" things are garbage and a way for the left to silence speech they don't want the public to hear. Notice that Kerry sent out his lawers to silence this speech...

Uh, that's not what it says in the Constitution. Check out Article I Section 8. I think the government has an interest in make sure that the American people are informed properly and not misled by a cabal of interested individuals pretending to be "journalists" who happen to have the money to broadcast those interests. You are completely off-base when you say people are trying to "silence" anyone. Sinclair can broadcast all the fake documentaries they want to smear Kerry. It's perfectly legal. They simply have to give equal time to a documentary that provides the opposite point of view, in this case, the truth about Kerry's service. You are only opposed to equal time because despite all your ravings about liberal media, you know full well most media conglomerates are owned and operated by rightists.

I think this discussion is evidence for Eric Alterman's theory of the media: that there is a liberal media, and there is a conservative media, but that the conservative media is way more right than the liberal media is left. After all, your paragon of "far-left" media endorsed three consecutive Republicans to lead the state and city of New York, and Sinclair is sacrificing buckets of money and violating federal law to trash Kerry on behalf of Bush.

 

[rhizome17]

There is definitely no 'far left' mainstream media. That is an entirely inaccurate description.

 

[rhizome17]

Haha just listening to some election coverage on BBC World Service, they have reporters in various swing states going around interviewing people at public events like fairs and the like. This exchange is classic, at a kids soccer game talking to the mothers:

Journalist: So who will you be voting for?

Woman: Oh, George Bush, certainly.

J: How do you think he has managed the war in Iraq?

W: Oh, he has done the best he can, I mean, they declared war on us first.

J (sounding incredulous): What do you mean? Iraq didn't declare war...

W: Yes they did, they came flying planes into our buildings

J (sounding even more incredulous): But that was Al Quida, not Iraq...

W: Yeah, but thats where they came from.