[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Mar 25 2003, 11:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Mar 25 2003, 11:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The USA care about the USA, not humanity, that's the sad lesson of the war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ummmmmmm, have you ever met a genuine United States Hippie ?
There's more of them than you think.
And for the rest of you USA bashers out there, I'm not going to debate this next point at all, it speaks for itself.....
Damn. You clever chaps have fallen onto Monse's plan after all. We were so close to snatching up Iraq and taking all their oil and enslaving their people just like we did at the end of the first Gulf War!!
First a clarification. This is the third gulf war. The first gulf war was when the Iraq-Iran war spilled over and flowed into the Persian Gulf, with mine laying and raids, and that called out for international support to protect oil tankers from being destroyed by marauding gunboats. Second gulf war was of course the 1991 one.
Next. Carrot Top? WTH? that flew completely over my head, would someone please explain what he is referring to?
And last: I was not trying to defend the Iraqi regime with my original al Jazeera posting. They are not possible to defended. I was trying to discuss if U$A has clean hands when they cry "geneva convention breach!". Some think they have, some think they haven't. That's the issue.
<!--QuoteBegin--DOOManiac+Mar 26 2003, 04:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Mar 26 2003, 04:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Damn. You clever chaps have fallen onto Monse's plan after all. We were so close to snatching up Iraq and taking all their oil and enslaving their people just like we did at the end of the first Gulf War!! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you're wrong. The USA brings peace, freedom, equality and wealth to all the poor people around the world for 50 years now and we should all be thankful for that! God bless America!
MonsE: You're right, I don't belive anything Fox or CNN says. Why? Because I have seen them lie for half a year now, over and over and over again. I have seen them lie during Afghanistan over and over again. I've seen them lie during Kosovo over and over again. (German media was not any better during the latter, by the way). And, moreover, I do not believe a word of what your mr. President says. He has lied so often that it is hard to believe him anything. What I see during this war are the different reports on the same events. Obviously someone is lieing, and surely all the sides do so. At the moment, I find the reports from Al-Dschasira quite credible because up until now, everything they said was proven afterwards.
You might believe your president but do not expect others to do so.
Back to the topic: Iraq showed PoWs with some tea. Is that humiliating as well? Should it have been coffee instead?
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 26 2003, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 26 2003, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so. At the moment, I find the reports from Al-Dschasira quite credible because up until now, everything they said was proven <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Al-Dschasira? Would someone fluid in arabic please provide me with a letter-to-letter translation if possible?
As regarding to their credibility. They have a distinct pro-arabic slant on all their reporting in this case. As pro-arabic as the western media are pro-western. I rate their credibility no higher than the western media, since they seem to be the tool of the iraqi government in their propaganda efforts. Now what you do as a critical, intelligent viewer is that you compare the contradicting reports on both media and draw your own conclusions. Taking any reporting at face value in this war is being stupid. Only later can we verify the veracity.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 26 2003, 07:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 26 2003, 07:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 26 2003, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 26 2003, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so. At the moment, I find the reports from Al-Dschasira quite credible because up until now, everything they said was proven <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Al-Dschasira? Would someone fluid in arabic please provide me with a letter-to-letter translation if possible?
As regarding to their credibility. They have a distinct pro-arabic slant on all their reporting in this case. As pro-arabic as the western media are pro-western. I rate their credibility no higher than the western media, since they seem to be the tool of the iraqi government in their propaganda efforts. Now what you do as a critical, intelligent viewer is that you compare the contradicting reports on both media and draw your own conclusions. Taking any reporting at face value in this war is being stupid. Only later can we verify the veracity. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Al-Dschasira = Al-Jazeera sorry...
Imma, you're right, but what I was refering to is the fact that after Al-Jazeera proclaimed something, it was later affirmated by western media as well (German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes). So that's why they seem to be credible to me, at the moment. If, for example, a US general says that 10 Iraqis were injured, but Al-Jazeera says that 20 Iraqis were killed, I am more likely to believe the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 26 2003, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 26 2003, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Al-Dschasira = Al-Jazeera sorry... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No no, you misunderstood. I am really interested in knowing if it's a matter of different transliterations. Like we write Gorbatjov but english people write Gorbachev. Or Sjukov vs. Zhukov. I didn't know arabic was also a language you had to transliterate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Imma, you're right, but what I was refering to is the fact that after Al-Jazeera proclaimed something, it was later affirmated by western media as well (German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes). So that's why they seem to be credible to me, at the moment. If, for example, a US general says that 10 Iraqis were injured, but Al-Jazeera says that 20 Iraqis were killed, I am more likely to believe the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, but that is because we know that coalition forces has an interest in keepin casualties low, and at least making sure they are reported as low. On the other hand, regime supporting reports from al-jazeera, that turns out differently on the western media, should be viewed with the same skepticism. I am not saying al-jazeera reporting supports the iraqi regime, their allegiations seems to be with the iraqi people in general in this matter. So we agree, kind of <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I am now fully behind Eggmac. I do dont even believe this war is happening at all, because the news media always lies. I'm sure it's all just a big PR stunt to help the 2004 Republican Relection Committee. Egg, we should get together and sneak around hollywood and see if we can find their secret special effects studio where the magic happens.
Really! Let's go! It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories.
Monsieur, you now seem to be bashing eggmac rather than coming up with good counters to why he is wrong. In case you did deliver your payload and there really isn't any thing else to add, I dont think it is really necesary to start ridiculing your opponent.
I stand by my several dozen previous reasoned responses to eggmac. He's not here to discuss, he's here to automatically disagree and ignore any non-like minded person has said without making the slightest attempt to consider their ideas. No on can counter his arguments as they just yelled opinions that he throws out without ever introducing any evidence, analogies, or attempted logic. It's fanaticism basically.
That being said, I was probably too harsh in the last response, and sinking down to his low level in my frustration. So I apologise to the rest of you for that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Mar 26 2003, 09:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Mar 26 2003, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Attempting to argue logic against sophistic rhetoric usually leads to arm flailing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A truer statement has not been made here yet. It's like a scientist trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is indeed round - the flat-earther refuses to listen to the arguments because he can't comprehend something like that, and the scientist just ends up frustrated, battling (what he believes to be) a stubborn illogical imbecile. What irritates me the most is that sort of fanatical anti-logic is why the mideast is up the spout right now anyway, but that's a different thread (which I'm surprised no one has started yet).
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 09:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 09:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No on can counter his arguments as they just yelled opinions that he throws out without ever introducing any evidence, analogies, or attempted logic. It's fanaticism basically.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How come you think that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's like a scientist trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is indeed round - the flat-earther refuses to listen to the arguments because he can't comprehend something like that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: You regard whatever you say as the simple and only truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one.
So, to sum it up, your only explanation for my claim that the US media is lieing and deceiving is that I am a fanatic.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Mar 25 2003, 03:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Mar 25 2003, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im really waiting for MonSes answer on this(mainly because he usually manages to make USA look like a little angel, want to see how he pulls this out ). 5€ bet he is going to give us a lecture on other world countries harassing prisoners and USA being the nicest of them all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whereas Dread will grasp at any and every piece of Anti-American propaganda and treat it like gospel. The US is always guilty until proven innocent, and if a news report is anti-US, that means that it's <i>just gotta</i> be true. Yes, yes-- we know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So I believe national news, sue me.
I see Iraq POWs on news channel I see USA POWs on news channel I see U$A accusing Iraq for breaking Geneva convention I say its bs. You say im wrong?
Im not basing my accusations of USA having double-standards only on that propaganda news Immacolata posted.
About earlier posts: yeah, im somewhat anti-usa, but if I shouldn't believe what Iraq prime minister says, why should I believe what USAs prime minister says? Howcome information coming from USA is more trustworthy and valuable than the one coming from Iraq? Both are full of propaganda, yes, but can we actually discuss about _anything_ if we can't base the discussions on any media/information coming from any government? Should I have first hand infromation on everything? Its VERY hard to find independent news source.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nothing new really, the world just has got used to western countries violating human rights. This is naturally wetern medias fault, where propaganda and patriotism often sell better than truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here I accuse ALL western countries for having double-standards, not only USA. Example from my own home country, ONE Finnish person dies violently abroad, it gets in to frontpage. 1000 people in Indonesia(or in Africa, or in China, or in Korea) die, you see small article on page 16. This is what I mean; western media reports of what sells, not what would be logically most important. Thats bad, and thats equally Europes and USAs fault.
Well not intentionally, but they don't seem to give a damn if they accidentically wipe few blocks(slightly exaggerated, civilian houses have been destroyed and people have died/wounded) to get ONE guy. IMHO this whole thing could have been done with assasins/200million reward for Saddams head etc, but thats offtopic now. Im pretty much with the Russian president on this, if big countries do whatever they want dispite world opinion, they will end up being next Nazi Germany or Soviet Union. The reason why Im not bashing Iraq is, there is no need to state the obvious. Everyone knows what Saddam is, U$A on the other hand, is more controversial and therefore is subjected to discussion on whether they really are defenders of the free world or tyrannic invaders.
And the reason why I was so excited about MonSes answer is that he is known for a) Making long and intelligent posts with interesting intuitions(although he also likes to bash and tenderly agitate other debaters, which will usually lead in to never ending chain of flames) b) Fiercely defending USA I was just curious on how he would handle this one, because it seems quite obvious that it is moronic to accuse Iraq for breaking Geneva Conventions whithout any proof whatsoever and doing almost the same thing on Iraq POWs.
I bet my badly expressed post caused huge amounts of flames, so I keep reading and mayhaps try to stick to my stance and reply more after I read the whole thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Imma, you're right, but what I was refering to is the fact that after Al-Jazeera proclaimed something, it was later affirmated by western media as well (German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes). So that's why they seem to be credible to me, at the moment. If, for example, a US general says that 10 Iraqis were injured, but Al-Jazeera says that 20 Iraqis were killed, I am more likely to believe the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you're looking at Al-Jazeera as a news source that is supplemented by other Western news sources-- German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes.
How does it stand on its own?
If that was your only option for news, do you think you'd get an unbiased, even-handed view of the world? I've tried to watch some of Al-Jazeera (difficult to find it over here and on the net) and read its news (difficult with slow servers and hack attacks) but from what I've seen, I'd be led to believe that the only casualties in this war have been Iraqi civilians, American/British soldiers, and American/British P.O.W.s.
How do they report the other side of things-- meaning, things that the Arab world wouldn't want to see or wouldn't support?
Ok, time for Dread-- I shall be doing this bit by bit as I go along:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I believe national news, sue me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
****I stand corrected******
But for the record, don't believe <i>any</i> news.
Also, don't say this with a straight face:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When their source in this case was . . . <i>AN IRAQI GOVERMENT OFFICIAL</i>!!!!!
Also--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I shouldn't believe what Iraq prime minister says, why should I believe what USAs prime minister says<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never asked you to. I only commented that it was laughably hypocritical for you to denounce <i>everything</i> the US gov't says (which is probably a good reaction), but then you turn around and take statements by an Iraqi foreign official at <i>face value</i>. You had already made it <b>more than clear</b> that you didn't trust US media <i>at all</i> when you said this. <b>Please</b> tell me you see this . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Mar 26 2003, 04:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Mar 26 2003, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry, but you can't shrug your shoulders at this when you've so vehemently accused Americans of being drooling CNN lackeys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't find "vehemently" from my dictionary(english being my third language), could you tell me what this actually means? Also, I can't remember accusing Americans for believing "CNN propaganda". I've seen many others do this, but can't remember I did it. Could you give me a quote while your at it(maybe I really did, maybe I have amnesia).
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 26 2003, 10:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 26 2003, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's like a scientist trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is indeed round - the flat-earther refuses to listen to the arguments because he can't comprehend something like that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: You regard whatever you say as the simple and only truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one.
So, to sum it up, your only explanation for my claim that the US media is lieing and deceiving is that I am a fanatic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do not believe myself to be the only truth. I just believe your points to be rhetoric with no conscious thought, just mouthed slogans. Religious fervor basically. Can you tell I am an aetheist? I despise fanaticism, and thought that is all emotion and no logic.
No, you're a fanatic for believing that ONLY the US media is lying. It's naive nonsense to use such obvious absolutes. To believe any one side of any issue all the time is to be a fanatic. It's the dictionary definition of fanaticism.
As for your conspiracy theories, you seem to have posted quite a bit denying how the Iraqi government tortures and kills its own people, or that the US does far worse things, or other imaginary lands. That puts you into the 'holocaust never happened camp' as far as I'm concerned, as you refuse to believe logical arguments or examples from reputable organizations I have provided, like the Red Cross and Amnesty Internation. You make it sound like an accidental civilian death in the removal of 24 million people from slavery is an unacceptable loss, and that the US intentionally hurts civillians. You basically believe whatever you are told as long as it doesn;t come from America.
So yes, I consider you a fanatic. Since I'm getting a bit worked up here I am going to avoid talking to you for a few days, as you ruin the enjoyment I have of honest and reasonable discussion in here with your illogical and unreasoned fanaticism.
As for Dread - I am quite happy about your post. You do something I wish people did more in here when arguing against US or Western aggression or governments: you acknowledge that it's not black and white, and that each side has an axe to grind. Now if I could only convince you that the iraqi axe is too horrible to contemplate agreeing with... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Textbook def: Vehemently means 'forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction' (dictionary.com)
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. It wasn't you. It was miezekatze, back in the anti-american thread (I get the anti-Americans confused, these days :o)
My apologies. I've revised the post above to remove those references. While I still take issue with the fact that you aren't equally suspicious of <i>all</i> news sources, I was definitely in the wrong in characterizing you as the 'accuses everyone of watching CNN then believes his own state media guy'.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now if I could only convince you that the iraqi axe is too horrible to contemplate agreeing with... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You wish <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Viva la resistance!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, don't say this with a straight face: QUOTE Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source?
When their source in this case was . . . AN IRAQI GOVERMENT OFFICIAL!!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, from now on I shall not trust any information coming from either USA or Iraq. Hmm, I remember USA claiming that they are near Baghdad(100km or so), bet thats big steaming pile of BS. They are not probably even in the whole country
Yeah, I got your drift, just couldn't resist <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> It's just that when you see article "USA does xxxxx" several times, you start believing that 5 news papers wouldn't publish such an information if it weren't anywhere near true.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 12:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 26 2003, 10:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 26 2003, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's like a scientist trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is indeed round - the flat-earther refuses to listen to the arguments because he can't comprehend something like that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: You regard whatever you say as the simple and only truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one.
So, to sum it up, your only explanation for my claim that the US media is lieing and deceiving is that I am a fanatic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do not believe myself to be the only truth. I just believe your points to be rhetoric with no conscious thought, just mouthed slogans. Religious fervor basically. Can you tell I am an aetheist? I despise fanaticism, and thought that is all emotion and no logic.
No, you're a fanatic for believing that ONLY the US media is lying. It's naive nonsense to use such obvious absolutes. To believe any one side of any issue all the time is to be a fanatic. It's the dictionary definition of fanaticism.
As for your conspiracy theories, you seem to have posted quite a bit denying how the Iraqi government tortures and kills its own people, or that the US does far worse things, or other imaginary lands. That puts you into the 'holocaust never happened camp' as far as I'm concerned, as you refuse to believe logical arguments or examples from reputable organizations I have provided, like the Red Cross and Amnesty Internation. You make it sound like an accidental civilian death in the removal of 24 million people from slavery is an unacceptable loss, and that the US intentionally hurts civillians. You basically believe whatever you are told as long as it doesn;t come from America.
So yes, I consider you a fanatic. Since I'm getting a bit worked up here I am going to avoid talking to you for a few days, as you ruin the enjoyment I have of honest and reasonable discussion in here with your illogical and unreasoned fanaticism.
As for Dread - I am quite happy about your post. You do something I wish people did more in here when arguing against US or Western aggression or governments: you acknowledge that it's not black and white, and that each side has an axe to grind. Now if I could only convince you that the iraqi axe is too horrible to contemplate agreeing with... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now c'mon MonsE, you can do better that this personal crap.
Now to your 2 points of that post: you claim
1) <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, you're a fanatic for believing that ONLY the US media is lying<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said so, nor do I think so.
2) <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you seem to have posted quite a bit denying how the Iraqi government tortures and kills its own people, or that the US does far worse things, or other imaginary lands. That puts you into the 'holocaust never happened camp' <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never denied the crimes by Saddam Hussein, I said they are very exaggerated and one-sided presented in the USA at the moment. As to your sources: Amnesty International publically condemned this war, so if you believe them in Iraq's case you have to believe them in America's case as well.
Amnesty International condemns <b>ALL WARS</b>. It's what they do for a living, FFS. They'd have condemned us counterattacking the Japanese if they had been around then. Jeebus H Christmas, have you read their charter?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->?
The crimes are not exagerated! Go read the freaking articles in AI's website for gosh sakes and see for yourself! You obviously haven't!!! I keep telling you to read impartial world websites like the Red Cross or AI, I never say read US websites!!!!
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 03:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Amnesty International condemns <b>ALL WARS</b>. It's what they do for a living, FFS. They'd have condemned us counterattacking the Japanese if they had been around then. Jeebus H Christmas, have you read their charter?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> LOL it's like saying "FFS AMNESTY CONDEMNS ALL DICTATORS!!!!111oneone, SO WHAT?"
They wouldn't have condemned you COUNTER-atacking the japanese, but condemned the A-bombs.
Do you see anyone condemning the Iraqis COUNTER-attacking the allied troops?
Now you're doing exactly the same thing that you claim the stupid leftist do: You only pick up those information which you like (Ai bashing Hussein, not Ai bashing the war) and disregard the illogic of it, you sordid fanatic <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
You still didn't say anything about why the Geneva Convention must apply to Iraq but International law does not apply to the USA.
I'm locking this thread for a while to give everyone the opportunity to reorganize their facts and calm down. Please don't re-open it before 8 pm your time, Mons.
Comments
Ummmmmmm, have you ever met a genuine United States Hippie ?
There's more of them than you think.
And for the rest of you USA bashers out there, I'm not going to debate this next point at all, it speaks for itself.....
**** you.
Next. Carrot Top? WTH? that flew completely over my head, would someone please explain what he is referring to?
And last: I was not trying to defend the Iraqi regime with my original al Jazeera posting. They are not possible to defended. I was trying to discuss if U$A has clean hands when they cry "geneva convention breach!". Some think they have, some think they haven't. That's the issue.
No, you're wrong. The USA brings peace, freedom, equality and wealth to all the poor people around the world for 50 years now and we should all be thankful for that! God bless America!
MonsE:
You're right, I don't belive anything Fox or CNN says. Why? Because I have seen them lie for half a year now, over and over and over again. I have seen them lie during Afghanistan over and over again. I've seen them lie during Kosovo over and over again. (German media was not any better during the latter, by the way). And, moreover, I do not believe a word of what your mr. President says. He has lied so often that it is hard to believe him anything.
What I see during this war are the different reports on the same events. Obviously someone is lieing, and surely all the sides do so. At the moment, I find the reports from Al-Dschasira quite credible because up until now, everything they said was proven afterwards.
You might believe your president but do not expect others to do so.
Back to the topic: Iraq showed PoWs with some tea. Is that humiliating as well? Should it have been coffee instead?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al-Dschasira? Would someone fluid in arabic please provide me with a letter-to-letter translation if possible?
As regarding to their credibility. They have a distinct pro-arabic slant on all their reporting in this case. As pro-arabic as the western media are pro-western. I rate their credibility no higher than the western media, since they seem to be the tool of the iraqi government in their propaganda efforts. Now what you do as a critical, intelligent viewer is that you compare the contradicting reports on both media and draw your own conclusions. Taking any reporting at face value in this war is being stupid. Only later can we verify the veracity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al-Dschasira? Would someone fluid in arabic please provide me with a letter-to-letter translation if possible?
As regarding to their credibility. They have a distinct pro-arabic slant on all their reporting in this case. As pro-arabic as the western media are pro-western. I rate their credibility no higher than the western media, since they seem to be the tool of the iraqi government in their propaganda efforts. Now what you do as a critical, intelligent viewer is that you compare the contradicting reports on both media and draw your own conclusions. Taking any reporting at face value in this war is being stupid. Only later can we verify the veracity. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al-Dschasira = Al-Jazeera
sorry...
Imma, you're right, but what I was refering to is the fact that after Al-Jazeera proclaimed something, it was later affirmated by western media as well (German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes). So that's why they seem to be credible to me, at the moment. If, for example, a US general says that 10 Iraqis were injured, but Al-Jazeera says that 20 Iraqis were killed, I am more likely to believe the latter.
sorry...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No no, you misunderstood. I am really interested in knowing if it's a matter of different transliterations. Like we write Gorbatjov but english people write Gorbachev. Or Sjukov vs. Zhukov. I didn't know arabic was also a language you had to transliterate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Imma, you're right, but what I was refering to is the fact that after Al-Jazeera proclaimed something, it was later affirmated by western media as well (German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes). So that's why they seem to be credible to me, at the moment. If, for example, a US general says that 10 Iraqis were injured, but Al-Jazeera says that 20 Iraqis were killed, I am more likely to believe the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, but that is because we know that coalition forces has an interest in keepin casualties low, and at least making sure they are reported as low. On the other hand, regime supporting reports from al-jazeera, that turns out differently on the western media, should be viewed with the same skepticism. I am not saying al-jazeera reporting supports the iraqi regime, their allegiations seems to be with the iraqi people in general in this matter. So we agree, kind of <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Really! Let's go! It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories.
Seems to me this is a perfect example of choosing to see one side as an aggressor and the other as a victim. I suggest the opposite is true.
That being said, I was probably too harsh in the last response, and sinking down to his low level in my frustration. So I apologise to the rest of you for that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A truer statement has not been made here yet. It's like a scientist trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is indeed round - the flat-earther refuses to listen to the arguments because he can't comprehend something like that, and the scientist just ends up frustrated, battling (what he believes to be) a stubborn illogical imbecile. What irritates me the most is that sort of fanatical anti-logic is why the mideast is up the spout right now anyway, but that's a different thread (which I'm surprised no one has started yet).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How come you think that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's like a scientist trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is indeed round - the flat-earther refuses to listen to the arguments because he can't comprehend something like that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: You regard whatever you say as the simple and only truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one.
So, to sum it up, your only explanation for my claim that the US media is lieing and deceiving is that I am a fanatic.
Whereas Dread will grasp at any and every piece of Anti-American propaganda and treat it like gospel. The US is always guilty until proven innocent, and if a news report is anti-US, that means that it's <i>just gotta</i> be true. Yes, yes-- we know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I believe national news, sue me.
I see Iraq POWs on news channel
I see USA POWs on news channel
I see U$A accusing Iraq for breaking Geneva convention
I say its bs. You say im wrong?
Im not basing my accusations of USA having double-standards only on that propaganda news Immacolata posted.
About earlier posts: yeah, im somewhat anti-usa, but if I shouldn't believe what Iraq prime minister says, why should I believe what USAs prime minister says? Howcome information coming from USA is more trustworthy and valuable than the one coming from Iraq? Both are full of propaganda, yes, but can we actually discuss about _anything_ if we can't base the discussions on any media/information coming from any government? Should I have first hand infromation on everything? Its VERY hard to find independent news source.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nothing new really, the world just has got used to western countries violating human rights. This is naturally wetern medias fault, where propaganda and patriotism often sell better than truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here I accuse ALL western countries for having double-standards, not only USA. Example from my own home country, ONE Finnish person dies violently abroad, it gets in to frontpage. 1000 people in Indonesia(or in Africa, or in China, or in Korea) die, you see small article on page 16. This is what I mean; western media reports of what sells, not what would be logically most important. Thats bad, and thats equally Europes and USAs fault.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->are intentionally targeting civilians?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well not intentionally, but they don't seem to give a damn if they accidentically wipe few blocks(slightly exaggerated, civilian houses have been destroyed and people have died/wounded) to get ONE guy. IMHO this whole thing could have been done with assasins/200million reward for Saddams head etc, but thats offtopic now. Im pretty much with the Russian president on this, if big countries do whatever they want dispite world opinion, they will end up being next Nazi Germany or Soviet Union. The reason why Im not bashing Iraq is, there is no need to state the obvious. Everyone knows what Saddam is, U$A on the other hand, is more controversial and therefore is subjected to discussion on whether they really are defenders of the free world or tyrannic invaders.
And the reason why I was so excited about MonSes answer is that he is known for
a) Making long and intelligent posts with interesting intuitions(although he also likes to bash and tenderly agitate other debaters, which will usually lead in to never ending chain of flames)
b) Fiercely defending USA
I was just curious on how he would handle this one, because it seems quite obvious that it is moronic to accuse Iraq for breaking Geneva Conventions whithout any proof whatsoever and doing almost the same thing on Iraq POWs.
I bet my badly expressed post caused huge amounts of flames, so I keep reading and mayhaps try to stick to my stance and reply more after I read the whole thread.
But you're looking at Al-Jazeera as a news source that is supplemented by other Western news sources-- German, French, Russian, even BBC sometimes.
How does it stand on its own?
If that was your only option for news, do you think you'd get an unbiased, even-handed view of the world? I've tried to watch some of Al-Jazeera (difficult to find it over here and on the net) and read its news (difficult with slow servers and hack attacks) but from what I've seen, I'd be led to believe that the only casualties in this war have been Iraqi civilians, American/British soldiers, and American/British P.O.W.s.
How do they report the other side of things-- meaning, things that the Arab world wouldn't want to see or wouldn't support?
Ok, time for Dread-- I shall be doing this bit by bit as I go along:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I believe national news, sue me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
****I stand corrected******
But for the record, don't believe <i>any</i> news.
Also, don't say this with a straight face:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When their source in this case was . . . <i>AN IRAQI GOVERMENT OFFICIAL</i>!!!!!
Also--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I shouldn't believe what Iraq prime minister says, why should I believe what USAs prime minister says<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never asked you to. I only commented that it was laughably hypocritical for you to denounce <i>everything</i> the US gov't says (which is probably a good reaction), but then you turn around and take statements by an Iraqi foreign official at <i>face value</i>. You had already made it <b>more than clear</b> that you didn't trust US media <i>at all</i> when you said this. <b>Please</b> tell me you see this . . .
I can't find "vehemently" from my dictionary(english being my third language), could you tell me what this actually means? Also, I can't remember accusing Americans for believing "CNN propaganda". I've seen many others do this, but can't remember I did it. Could you give me a quote while your at it(maybe I really did, maybe I have amnesia).
Translation: You regard whatever you say as the simple and only truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one.
So, to sum it up, your only explanation for my claim that the US media is lieing and deceiving is that I am a fanatic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe myself to be the only truth. I just believe your points to be rhetoric with no conscious thought, just mouthed slogans. Religious fervor basically. Can you tell I am an aetheist? I despise fanaticism, and thought that is all emotion and no logic.
No, you're a fanatic for believing that ONLY the US media is lying. It's naive nonsense to use such obvious absolutes. To believe any one side of any issue all the time is to be a fanatic. It's the dictionary definition of fanaticism.
As for your conspiracy theories, you seem to have posted quite a bit denying how the Iraqi government tortures and kills its own people, or that the US does far worse things, or other imaginary lands. That puts you into the 'holocaust never happened camp' as far as I'm concerned, as you refuse to believe logical arguments or examples from reputable organizations I have provided, like the Red Cross and Amnesty Internation. You make it sound like an accidental civilian death in the removal of 24 million people from slavery is an unacceptable loss, and that the US intentionally hurts civillians. You basically believe whatever you are told as long as it doesn;t come from America.
So yes, I consider you a fanatic. Since I'm getting a bit worked up here I am going to avoid talking to you for a few days, as you ruin the enjoyment I have of honest and reasonable discussion in here with your illogical and unreasoned fanaticism.
As for Dread - I am quite happy about your post. You do something I wish people did more in here when arguing against US or Western aggression or governments: you acknowledge that it's not black and white, and that each side has an axe to grind. Now if I could only convince you that the iraqi axe is too horrible to contemplate agreeing with... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. It wasn't you. It was miezekatze, back in the anti-american thread (I get the anti-Americans confused, these days :o)
My apologies. I've revised the post above to remove those references. While I still take issue with the fact that you aren't equally suspicious of <i>all</i> news sources, I was definitely in the wrong in characterizing you as the 'accuses everyone of watching CNN then believes his own state media guy'.
My mistake!
You wish <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Viva la resistance!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, don't say this with a straight face:
QUOTE
Surely they wouldn't make so outrageous claim if they hadn't any good source?
When their source in this case was . . . AN IRAQI GOVERMENT OFFICIAL!!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, from now on I shall not trust any information coming from either USA or Iraq.
Hmm, I remember USA claiming that they are near Baghdad(100km or so), bet thats big steaming pile of BS. They are not probably even in the whole country
Yeah, I got your drift, just couldn't resist <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's just that when you see article "USA does xxxxx" several times, you start believing that 5 news papers wouldn't publish such an information if it weren't anywhere near true.
Translation: You regard whatever you say as the simple and only truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It totally makes sense, considering all your other conspiracy theories. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one.
So, to sum it up, your only explanation for my claim that the US media is lieing and deceiving is that I am a fanatic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe myself to be the only truth. I just believe your points to be rhetoric with no conscious thought, just mouthed slogans. Religious fervor basically. Can you tell I am an aetheist? I despise fanaticism, and thought that is all emotion and no logic.
No, you're a fanatic for believing that ONLY the US media is lying. It's naive nonsense to use such obvious absolutes. To believe any one side of any issue all the time is to be a fanatic. It's the dictionary definition of fanaticism.
As for your conspiracy theories, you seem to have posted quite a bit denying how the Iraqi government tortures and kills its own people, or that the US does far worse things, or other imaginary lands. That puts you into the 'holocaust never happened camp' as far as I'm concerned, as you refuse to believe logical arguments or examples from reputable organizations I have provided, like the Red Cross and Amnesty Internation. You make it sound like an accidental civilian death in the removal of 24 million people from slavery is an unacceptable loss, and that the US intentionally hurts civillians. You basically believe whatever you are told as long as it doesn;t come from America.
So yes, I consider you a fanatic. Since I'm getting a bit worked up here I am going to avoid talking to you for a few days, as you ruin the enjoyment I have of honest and reasonable discussion in here with your illogical and unreasoned fanaticism.
As for Dread - I am quite happy about your post. You do something I wish people did more in here when arguing against US or Western aggression or governments: you acknowledge that it's not black and white, and that each side has an axe to grind. Now if I could only convince you that the iraqi axe is too horrible to contemplate agreeing with... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now c'mon MonsE, you can do better that this personal crap.
Now to your 2 points of that post:
you claim
1)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, you're a fanatic for believing that ONLY the US media is lying<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said so, nor do I think so.
2)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you seem to have posted quite a bit denying how the Iraqi government tortures and kills its own people, or that the US does far worse things, or other imaginary lands. That puts you into the 'holocaust never happened camp' <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never denied the crimes by Saddam Hussein, I said they are very exaggerated and one-sided presented in the USA at the moment. As to your sources: Amnesty International publically condemned this war, so if you believe them in Iraq's case you have to believe them in America's case as well.
The crimes are not exagerated! Go read the freaking articles in AI's website for gosh sakes and see for yourself! You obviously haven't!!! I keep telling you to read impartial world websites like the Red Cross or AI, I never say read US websites!!!!
Gah. I said I wouldn't talk to you.
<img src='http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/145/640/10x7/030326_war_09.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL it's like saying "FFS AMNESTY CONDEMNS ALL DICTATORS!!!!111oneone, SO WHAT?"
They wouldn't have condemned you COUNTER-atacking the japanese, but condemned the A-bombs.
Do you see anyone condemning the Iraqis COUNTER-attacking the allied troops?
Now you're doing exactly the same thing that you claim the stupid leftist do: You only pick up those information which you like (Ai bashing Hussein, not Ai bashing the war) and disregard the illogic of it, you sordid fanatic <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
You still didn't say anything about why the Geneva Convention must apply to Iraq but International law does not apply to the USA.
I'm locking this thread for a while to give everyone the opportunity to reorganize their facts and calm down. Please don't re-open it before 8 pm your time, Mons.