Falluja's Slaughterhouses

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 11 2004, 11:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 11 2004, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Nov 11 2004, 03:25 PM
I get that if you support the war, and 'hate' the 'terrorists', then the word slaughterhouse probably fits. I don't agree w/ either, so I have a hard time. To each their own.

You don't hate terrorists?

Isn't that like saying you don't hate cancer? Or child abuse? [/b][/quote]
Can you believe it? I appear to be an anomaly around here, I actually don't 'hate' anyone I don't know. There are people I hate, and I have reasons for hating them. I don't hate Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein though, or terrorists around the world, be they murderers or freedom fighters. What's the point? Why would I? They haven't done anything to me.

You're the one always talking about how the truth is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. Some believe Middle Eastern resistors are terrorists, some believe they're freedom fighters, isn't the truth somewhere in the middle?

I've often seen you frustrated when people come out hard against the Republicans with an often emotional, irrational bent to their argument. I hear the same type of thing when people talk about terrorists, and it bugs me just like it bugs you over Democrats/Republicans. Just as hating or loving GW isn't a clear-cut case, I don't think hating/loving terrorist/freedom-fighters is a clear-cut hate-them-all kill-them-all conclusion.

[Hot_Sauce]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Nov 11 2004, 11:16 AM

I don't think the argument here is 'why has the media used this word' so much as 'should the media have used this word'. I get that we live in a capitalist media system where crap sells, the dirtier the better.

I wonder how CNN's headlines would have described what Edward R. Murrow saw when Eisenhower dispatched him and several other journalists to see first hand what concentration camps looked like....

Murrow was actually quoted saying "if you tried to tell the actual facts, you'd get into filth and obscenity that would be unprintable."

We live in different times now.

If the 'crap' sells but the point is still captured then let the 'crap' sell.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Nov 11 2004, 05:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Nov 11 2004, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You don't hate terrorists?

Isn't that like saying you don't hate cancer? Or child abuse?

Can you believe it? I appear to be an anomaly around here, I actually don't 'hate' anyone I don't know. There are people I hate, and I have reasons for hating them. I don't hate Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein though, or terrorists around the world, be they murderers or freedom fighters. What's the point? Why would I? They haven't done anything to me.

You're the one always talking about how the truth is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. Some believe Middle Eastern resistors are terrorists, some believe they're freedom fighters, isn't the truth somewhere in the middle?

I've often seen you frustrated when people come out hard against the Republicans with an often emotional, irrational bent to their argument. I hear the same type of thing when people talk about terrorists, and it bugs me just like it bugs you over Democrats/Republicans. Just as hating or loving GW isn't a clear-cut case, I don't think hating/loving terrorist/freedom-fighters is a clear-cut hate-them-all kill-them-all conclusion. [/b][/quote]
I guess I can see what you are saying, though you are taking it to an extreme in my mind.

I don't hate people as a rule, no, ... but I'll make an exception for people that plot to knock down buildings in the US killing civilians. I'll make an exception for people that grab hostages off the street and cut their heads off in protest.

But I didn't hate Iraqi military personnel for doing their job in fighting back against the United States.

It's a tough nut to crack, but I would guess most Iraqi people would love for the "freedom fighters" to call it a day so they can get on with their peaceful lives.

[Agamemnon]

I hear ya Bingo, I recognize that I probably represent an 'extreme' point of view, understood :P

I don't hate people as a rule, no, ... but I'll make an exception for people that plot to knock down buildings in the US killing civilians. I'll make an exception for people that grab hostages off the street and cut their heads off in protest.

But I didn't hate Iraqi military personnel for doing their job in fighting back against the United States.

I guess thats where the difference is. I probably see a lot of 'resistors' in the same light (or better) than I saw Saddam's army. Neither group is inherently 'evil' to me, and neither deserve hatred from us. I guess I sympathize with those resistors who are not resorting to pure murder-tactics, of which I'm sure there are many. There are killers and evil-men who are in the resistance, just as there are in the US army.

It's a tough nut to crack, but I would guess most Iraqi people would love for the "freedom fighters" to call it a day so they can get on with their peaceful lives.

In the end, I'd say the same thing, replacing 'freedom fighters' with 'US Army', and call it even.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 11 2004, 08:44 AM
Guys, believe me, I can understand you're hesitation with news stories that support the US war in Iraq.

But from what I've read we have to question the BBC's negative spin on the war every bit as much as a person should question CNN's positive spin. Like most things in life, the truth is in the middle, not at the BBC's door step.

Why do we have to question their reporting (notice i didn't use the word spin)? They are a state sponsored news organization that doesn't earn a dime in advertising revenue, supported by a government that believes in the war and is commited to it. So if they critisize the war and thus thier government and paycheck, they kinda show they have some credibility.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 06:48 AM

Why do we have to question their reporting (notice i didn't use the word spin)? They are a state sponsored news organization that doesn't earn a dime in advertising revenue, supported by a government that believes in the war and is commited to it. So if they critisize the war and thus thier government and paycheck, they kinda show they have some credibility.

Because BBC employees have already been forced to resign for LYING about the war on the air. That's why.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 12 2004, 05:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 12 2004, 05:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 06:48 AM

Why do we have to question their reporting (notice i didn't use the word spin)? They are a state sponsored news organization that doesn't earn a dime in advertising revenue, supported by a government that believes in the war and is commited to it. So if they critisize the war and thus thier government and paycheck, they kinda show they have some credibility.

Because BBC employees have already been forced to resign for LYING about the war on the air. That's why. [/b][/quote]
Well US news people would never do that would they? I don't know the story you refer to, but at least they were forced to resign, unlike Dan "realed in and spew it out" Rather who, lookie lookie is still there, no acountability. Um then there's the scandal of Robert Novak (not a news man but obviously endorsed by a news station) who's not so much a liar; though he refuses to tell the whole truth, as a traitor. Still there. But then look at the President you have, he lied and is still there, guess bs flows down hill. I don't know, say what you want, I've experienced much of both and in my opinion, the BBC makes the US news look like ametuers. Albeit slightly more stiffly

[Bingo]

I don't think anyone in this string has defended the US media at all ... but to assume everything that the BBC writes is objective is a dangerous habit.

If you want to research bias on the internet the BBC comes up more often than any other publication. That alone doesn't make them guilty, but that much smoke? I'd assume some fire.

anti-American
anti-Israeli

from most accounts.

How can they be objective with the US in a middle east country?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 12 2004, 08:28 AM
I don't think anyone in this string has defended the US media at all ... but to assume everything that the BBC writes is objective is a dangerous habit.

If you want to research bias on the internet the BBC comes up more often than any other publication. That alone doesn't make them guilty, but that much smoke? I'd assume some fire.

anti-American
anti-Israeli

from most accounts.

How can they be objective with the US in a middle east country?

I don't think anyone on this board has defended everything the BBC writes. If you read I actualy said that it's good to see that they have accountability and get resignations when things go wrong.
I'd be interested to know how your suggested search goes. Perhaps I'll try it on google. "Which are the most biased news organizations". But then if they think there are problems with the war (both the need for it and running of it), they're going to seem anti US, but perhaps they're just anti lying presidents, cause as you agree, where there's smoke there's fire.
I can't imagine they're any more anti US than CNN are pro US, oh wait a minute, yes I can.
Oh and I never said I always think they're objective.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 10:25 AM
I'd be interested to know how your suggested search goes. Perhaps I'll try it on google. "Which are the most biased news organizations". But then if they think there are problems with the war (both the need for it and running of it), they're going to seem anti US, but perhaps they're just anti lying presidents, cause as you agree, where there's smoke there's fire.
I can't imagine they're any more anti US than CNN are pro US, oh wait a minute, yes I can.
Oh and I never said I always think they're objective.

Man are you jaded ...

You're not even coming to the table in this one.

Anti-Lying US President? Don't you think that's a little over the top? The smoke there (and the fire as it turned out) was flawed intelligence, there's nothing more than innuendo or heresay beyond that.

I'm not calling out the BBC as completely biased, but they do show up often in anti-US examples including that moron's comment about hoping for an assasignation in the States.

The bottom line in this string however is a word usage by CNN, nothing more. Did the BBC even report the house being found? Wasn't mentioned in the link put forth above.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 12 2004, 04:43 PM
The bottom line in this string however is a word usage by CNN, nothing more. Did the BBC even report the house being found? Wasn't mentioned in the link put forth above.

To be honest, we don't even know that they found anything at all. When CNN is getting it's information directly from the military, there is a good chance that it could be just part of the information war. We all know that the distribution and fabrication of information is a big part of any war, so you have to take these stories with a grain of salt. At the very least, you know it is biased in favour of the U.S. forces.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 12 2004, 09:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 12 2004, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 10:25 AM
I'd be interested to know how your suggested search goes. Perhaps I'll try it on google. "Which are the most biased news organizations". But then if they think there are problems with the war (both the need for it and running of it), they're going to seem anti US, but perhaps they're just anti lying presidents, cause as you agree, where there's smoke there's fire.
I can't imagine they're any more anti US than CNN are pro US, oh wait a minute, yes I can.
Oh and I never said I always think they're objective.

Man are you jaded ...

You're not even coming to the table in this one.

Anti-Lying US President? Don't you think that's a little over the top? The smoke there (and the fire as it turned out) was flawed intelligence, there's nothing more than innuendo or heresay beyond that.

I'm not calling out the BBC as completely biased, but they do show up often in anti-US examples including that moron's comment about hoping for an assasignation in the States.

The bottom line in this string however is a word usage by CNN, nothing more. Did the BBC even report the house being found? Wasn't mentioned in the link put forth above. [/b][/quote]
Call me names if you want Bingo.
I for one don't believe the BBC is anti US at all, perhaps a little less inclined to report things favorably to the US point of view as the US news is, granted, but perhaps that's a good thing.
I do happen to think Bush lied, mislead, didn't tell the whole truth, what ever you want to call it. I'm not the only one, and that doesn't make me jaded. Perhaps I should call you gullable, naieve, easily lead astray (while we're name calling)
You said there's a lot of smoke there and therefore something to it. Why can't Bush be held to that standard, given that I don't think it's inuendo and the like as you put it? There was flawed intelligence, but also some "only hearing what they wanted to hear" which IMO isn't the whole truth. There's smoke IMO.
Oh and if someone said they wished there was an assasination, they're clearly wrong and if they're gone, better. But I don't think that means they're anti american, anymore than i think CNN is when I hear "the Canadian threat from above" report on CNN. And nor do I always think what anyone says, including the BBC is gospel.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 01:20 PM
Call me names if you want Bingo.
I for one don't believe the BBC is anti US at all, perhaps a little less inclined to report things favorably to the US point of view as the US news is, granted, but perhaps that's a good thing.
I do happen to think Bush lied, mislead, didn't tell the whole truth, what ever you want to call it. I'm not the only one, and that doesn't make me jaded. Perhaps I should call you gullable, naieve, easily lead astray (while we're name calling)
You said there's a lot of smoke there and therefore something to it. Why can't Bush be held to that standard, given that I don't think it's inuendo and the like as you put it? There was flawed intelligence, but also some "only hearing what they wanted to hear" which IMO isn't the whole truth. There's smoke IMO.
Oh and if someone said they wished there was an assasination, they're clearly wrong and if they're gone, better. But I don't think that means they're anti american, anymore than i think CNN is when I hear "the Canadian threat from above" report on CNN. And nor do I always think what anyone says, including the BBC is gospel.

Names? Do you mean jaded? That's not an insult it's a description of a person that is so hostile about something that it's literally wearing him out. Sorry if you took offence to that, but I do think it's somewhat true.

I would have voted for Bush in the US election, but I'm not so 100% on one side of these issues. Nobody should be. I realize that Fox leans right, and that CNN would be more pro than anti American, and that the BBC seems to have an axe to grind with the US.

I belive some serious mistakes were made in and around the Iraqi conflict, but I don't believe it was some plan to lie to Americans to go to war. Why go to that much trouble and then not stash some evidence of WMD in place to make it look good. Doesn't add up.

Everyone seems to want me to just accept that Fox is the right arm for the Republican party but the BBC is just a little less inclined to report things favorably to the US point of view?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On+Nov 12 2004, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Nov 12 2004, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Because BBC employees have already been forced to resign for LYING about the war on the air. That's why.

Well US news people would never do that would they? I don't know the story you refer to, but at least they were forced to resign, unlike Dan "realed in and spew it out" Rather who, lookie lookie is still there, no acountability. Um then there's the scandal of Robert Novak (not a news man but obviously endorsed by a news station) who's not so much a liar; though he refuses to tell the whole truth, as a traitor. Still there. But then look at the President you have, he lied and is still there, guess bs flows down hill. I don't know, say what you want, I've experienced much of both and in my opinion, the BBC makes the US news look like ametuers. Albeit slightly more stiffly [/b][/quote]
Thanks for agreeing with me. Did you even realize you just disproved your own point?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 12 2004, 12:59 PM
Names? Do you mean jaded? That's not an insult it's a description of a person that is so hostile about something that it's literally wearing him out. Sorry if you took offence to that, but I do think it's somewhat true.

I would have voted for Bush in the US election, but I'm not so 100% on one side of these issues. Nobody should be. I realize that Fox leans right, and that CNN would be more pro than anti American, and that the BBC seems to have an axe to grind with the US.

I belive some serious mistakes were made in and around the Iraqi conflict, but I don't believe it was some plan to lie to Americans to go to war. Why go to that much trouble and then not stash some evidence of WMD in place to make it look good. Doesn't add up.

Everyone seems to want me to just accept that Fox is the right arm for the Republican party but the BBC is just a little less inclined to report things favorably to the US point of view?

Well perhaps I shouldn't take offence. In turn it's not an insult to be gullable it's a description of a person that's easily fed information/or an agenda, but I do think it's somewhat true. I mean you admit yourself you have doubts and don't like the way many things are handled, but you still would've voted for Bush, still swallowed it all.
I don't think they set out to lie to America, I think they were incosequential to their plans. They did what they wanted and sculpted certain facts to meet their needs and presented it.
I couldn't care less about what everyone seems to want re fox and BBC and what they want you to accept. Fox has right leaning american political views. The BBC, what's their vested interest in being anti american?
As for being burnt out, no worries not at all.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flame On+Nov 13 2004, 12:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Nov 13 2004, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 12 2004, 12:59 PM
Names? Do you mean jaded? That's not an insult it's a description of a person that is so hostile about something that it's literally wearing him out. Sorry if you took offence to that, but I do think it's somewhat true.

I would have voted for Bush in the US election, but I'm not so 100% on one side of these issues. Nobody should be. I realize that Fox leans right, and that CNN would be more pro than anti American, and that the BBC seems to have an axe to grind with the US.

I belive some serious mistakes were made in and around the Iraqi conflict, but I don't believe it was some plan to lie to Americans to go to war. Why go to that much trouble and then not stash some evidence of WMD in place to make it look good. Doesn't add up.

Everyone seems to want me to just accept that Fox is the right arm for the Republican party but the BBC is just a little less inclined to report things favorably to the US point of view?

Well perhaps I shouldn't take offence. In turn it's not an insult to be gullable it's a description of a person that's easily fed information/or an agenda, but I do think it's somewhat true. I mean you admit yourself you have doubts and don't like the way many things are handled, but you still would've voted for Bush, still swallowed it all.
I don't think they set out to lie to America, I think they were incosequential to their plans. They did what they wanted and sculpted certain facts to meet their needs and presented it.
I couldn't care less about what everyone seems to want re fox and BBC and what they want you to accept. Fox has right leaning american political views. The BBC, what's their vested interest in being anti american?
As for being burnt out, no worries not at all. [/b][/quote]
I won't take offence to gullable, but I also won't agree with you. To call someone gullible is to assume you have greater knowledge of reality, which you don't. You have an opinion that differs from mine. That's pretty much it.

You could be right ... Bush et al may have cooked the books to go into Iraq from the start.

But then I could be right too. He just may have been a US president that changed his philosophy on 911 and decided he couldn't let a hostile world just go on and hope not to get hit.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 13 2004, 02:25 PM
I won't take offence to gullable, but I also won't agree with you. To call someone gullible is to assume you have greater knowledge of reality, which you don't. You have an opinion that differs from mine. That's pretty much it.

You could be right ... Bush et al may have cooked the books to go into Iraq from the start.

But then I could be right too. He just may have been a US president that changed his philosophy on 911 and decided he couldn't let a hostile world just go on and hope not to get hit.

Well it looks like we're boiling it down to agreeing to disagree, which I can live with. Like with gullable. I don't think it assumes I think I'd have a greater knowledge. A person that's wants another to believe them or use their agenda doesn't compare levels of knowledge before stating their case, they just try to convince them. I don't think I have better knowledge than you, nor did I claim that. But I think the US government knows the issues better than you, and it's against them that I think you are gullable.
You also could be right, the hundreds of people in book, on news, in the press, that have accused them of dropping the ball, or misleading or ignorring, or rushing in; from within the admin, from without, from wherever, may be all wrong and it's all on the up and up.
But then I could be right too. And I don't think that makes me jaded.