Well now, he thinks the media is biased too...

[K e r b e r o s]

It can't just be us stereotyped Conservatives who see a bias -- apparently someone else has the entirely same arguement.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

Read. Dont be lazy. Read ALL OF IT. Don't post unless you quote from what the man says, from top to bottom. Read, read, read.

 

[burner69]

I didn't read all of it, but a sizeable portion.

Let me guess, this article is supposed to make all the people opposed to the war suddenly realise their mistake and start supporting it.

Idon'tthinkso

Most anti-war folk are not anti war because we hear about the US suffering casualities, that's war, it happens. What we disagree with is the 'why' of this war. Why are we there at this precarious time? Why were we lied to? Why attack Iraq, when there are many other more important targets?

And pick an unbias opinion why don't you.

He says that Iraq is safer than ever, or something similar somewhere in that article - you wanna explain why the Lancet report found you're 800% (I think that's right, it's a lot more anyway) more likely to die now in Iraq, than before.

And you think a guy who has been trained to obey orders, listen to his commanding officers etc etc is the best person to ask about the state of Iraq. He seems like an intelligent, and naturally concerned guy - I just don't think he's being fed the full political background, and if he is, he's being told it's bulls*it.

And yes, the media is biased. But I personally don't base my opinions of Iraq on soley the media, I look at studies, political background, the build up to, the speechs the pres and his buddies made, the facts etc.

 

[CptStern]

pfft, the writer is military personnel, where's his journalistic integrity? where's his objectivity? ..sorry this reads just like a propaganda piece

example:

"As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. "

does that include the 600 dead civilians? did the allies accidentily/purposefully kill 600 frenchmen in their attempts at getting rid of the german occupiers? how is that in any way comparable? the US are the occupiers, not the other way around


another example of bull:

"All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq ........Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy. "

Doctors Without Borders (doctors, nurses, medical staff who volunteer to help women and children in wartorn countries) that have been operating in some of the worst warzones for over 20 years have pulled out of Iraq due to safety concerns. They've never pulled out of a dangerous situation before. Some of the warzones they've been in: Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leon (for over a decade the UN's worst country to live in), Bosnia, Haiti etc

there are currently an average of about 80 attacks a day on coalition troops, up from 30 odd in march ...so how is the situation in Iraq getting better?

 

[satch919]

I respect his views. In some ways I agree with him about the media. I am also glad that he's serving our country.

However, I've heard the opposite from other people in the military stating that its worse than some people would like to believe. The Iraqis are taking more casualties than us so why not ask them?

I am still against this war, plain and simple.

 

[Eg.]

yes, that includes the 600 dead civilians. why do u keep bringing it uo, we dotn care about them

 

[Absinthe]

yes, that includes the 600 dead civilians. why do u keep bringing it uo, we dotn care about them

See, that's why you're an asshole and a hypocrite.

"Free the Iraqis!"

Two seconds later.

"Who cares if they die? **** 'em."

 

[burner69]

yes, that includes the 600 dead civilians. why do u keep bringing it uo, we dotn care about them

Why do you keep on bringing up 9/11. It's all winge winge winge with you righties. Eeeow, they bombed us... eeeow innocent US people died.
We don't care about them, why am I always hearing about it.

(For anyone who does not know sarcasm, I am of course making a point, I think 9/11 was a horrible thing to happen)

 

[CptStern]

yes, that includes the 600 dead civilians. why do u keep bringing it uo, we dotn care about them

that's pretty obvious

a message from bush to the people of iraq:

"You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free. "


over 600 good, gifted people who are the heirs of a great civilization who deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. But dont worry, your nation will "SOON BE FREE"

hypocrites

 

[Scoobnfl]

there is a lesson to be learned from those that died in fallujah, and that lesson is that they should have gotten the freak out and they should have helped identify the terrorists/insurgents/whatevuhs.

choosing to remain in Fallujah and not identify the terrorists/insurgents/whatevuhs was blatant ignorance on their part not evidence of being gifted. of course there is the chance that some of those 600 could have been participating in and colluding with the terrorists.

 

[burner69]

there is a lesson to be learned from those that died in fallujah, and that lesson is that they should have gotten the freak out and they should have helped identify the terrorists/insurgents/whatevuhs.

choosing to remain in Fallujah and not identify the terrorists/insurgents/whatevuhs was blatant ignorance on their part not evidence of being gifted. of course there is the chance that some of those 600 could have been participating in and colluding with the terrorists.

What the f**k planet are you living on?

Those 600 people were living there when american forces pulled up and started attacking insurgants in the town. Through cross fire, shelling, and perhaps mistaken identity 600 people are now dead. Shall we say 9/11 didn't matter cuz, well, those people shouldn't have been working in the evil corporate machine, and some of them were probably terrorists too?

INNOCENT PEOPLE! Get that into your stupid thick head. Innocent people have died and you think it's their fault, you think they were all on the side of the 'terrorists' ('terrorists' read: enemy. Terrorists makes them sound like a threat to back home), and some were probably terrorists too.

You're unbelievable.

 

[CptStern]

there is a lesson to be learned from those that died in fallujah, and that lesson is that they should have gotten the freak out and they should have helped identify the terrorists/insurgents/whatevuhs.

300 of the dead were women and children ..I guess to you it was there own fault

choosing to remain in Fallujah and not identify the terrorists/insurgents/whatevuhs was blatant ignorance on their part not evidence of being gifted. of course there is the chance that some of those 600 could have been participating in and colluding with the terrorists.

yes I'm sure there were plenty of children running around carrying ak's and shouting anti-american slogans

if there was even one american child killed you would all be calling for the US to nuke Iraq ..freakin hypocrisy

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So .. yes.

I didn't read all of it, but a sizeable portion.

Let me guess,

I thought you read a, "Sizeable" portion?

this article is supposed to make all the people opposed to the war suddenly realise their mistake and start supporting it.

Under which context is that stated? It was an article directed towards the media, who share the ideal that "if it bleeds, it leads". That was his criticsm, up to including you hear nothing of the good thats done, even when it does happen.

Is he not allowed that much room? Or should we people squander him because of his being a soldier?

And pick an unbias opinion why don't you.

Reading how I started this thread, I cant see where I was biased.

He says that Iraq is safer than ever, or something similar somewhere in that article - you wanna explain why the Lancet report found you're 800% (I think that's right, it's a lot more anyway) more likely to die now in Iraq, than before.

14,000 estimated dead. Thats about how many people die in the United States every year; from crimes to accidents -- yet, not every township or city is being sieged. Yet, read what he stated here:

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True — yes, accurate — yes, but in context with the greater good taking place — no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

He's exactly right on this point.

And you think a guy who has been trained to obey orders, listen to his commanding officers etc etc is the best person to ask about the state of Iraq.

I think that he is a much better outlet for opinions on Iraq then anyone of us here. Now, how can we as normal people trust a few and between article writers who have nethire participated in combat, or been to Iraq for a personal opinion?

Quiet clearly, this man has an opinion just like everyone else -- however what seperates it from all the rest, is he just happens to be there fighting this war. I trust, even Iraqi articles written on Al-Jazeera, for not only perspective but of opinion. I've not written anything horrible or slanderous against one middle-eastern media outlet, because I've not had anything against what else they're is in the world.

On the notation he is an American soldier ...

Spare me of anymore diatribe with additions to the Iraqi dead -- I think its been doctrinated just enough to the point the emotives behind the unfortunates are becoming annoying. Dont get me wrong -- the deaths are tragic, and dont try to deny I feel this either.

He seems like an intelligent, and naturally concerned guy - I just don't think he's being fed the full political background, and if he is, he's being told it's bulls*it.

Well, Right or Left, people are going to disagree about certain topics -- I dont think being a Right, Left, or Soldier, or Iraqi, or basic country citizen, can make us all inherently right about the points surrounding the purpose of going into Iraq, or whats entirely happening they're.

Though again, I think a Soldier is better then a common reader editorial that you can find on any News and Observer.

pfft, the writer is military personnel, where's his journalistic integrity? where's his objectivity?

All over -- besides maybe two paragraphs of his personal feelings about the situation you consider "propaganda", everything else is his objective opinion. His integrity, is the pursuit of the media's willingness to still "win an election they lost".

Reporters are raised out of curiosity and fact-finding; however, they dont always need each other at the exact same moment. Plus, he's a soldier -- he's not held to being for objective or journalistic integrity; so it was really his choice to even bother disputing the media. Such things like journalistic integrity are minor for his occupation -- like yours and mine. Were not journalists. Where's your integrity?

..sorry this reads just like a propaganda piece

Yea, for only two paragraphs out of they ...

21. In total, its 23. Its a long observation.

Here's what you halved of it:

"As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. "

Here's how the entire paragraph starts and finishes as complete, without your cutting:

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

Is this propaganda, or is he just reporting a personal perspective? When you halved the article coppeled with the initial logic, "its propaganda", it looked kind of sketchy and inspecific. Yet, when finished, it hardly looks like your portrayal, and it does'nt even close the gaps to go so far as to hit the lenght of propaganda. If this is what you consider propaganda, then so is everything else in the news -- ranging from reader editorials, to journalistic entries.

If however, you think your not capable of spewing propaganda just under the thought convincing people to your own mends might make the world better, think again. Despite the connotations, death, and our messapotomia going on -- what makes your own emotives any different from his own?

Viewpoint -- but the passion makes you similiar.

does that include the 600 dead civilians? did the allies accidentily/purposefully kill 600 frenchmen in their attempts at getting rid of the german occupiers?

Yes they did:

http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

"Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting."

http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1121476.htm

John Keegan: Yes, there were about a million French dead in the Second World War, a lot of whom were killed, not in the Normandy fighting, but by Allied bombing.

http://search.eb.com/normandy/week5/casualties01a.html

[Check the Link there - Civilian French Casualties on D-Day]

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/ISSUE/Caen_Destruct.htm

"Pre-invasion bombing had already killed 12,000 civilians in France. Hundreds more were now buried in the ruins of Caen."

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/2004_dday_deaths.html

Additionally, an estimated 15-20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly by Allied bombing.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=59&story_id=4745&name=D-Day+memories

"Allied bombing flattened the Norman capital of Caen, killing 3,000 civilians."

another example of bull:

Course, mixing was'nt enough for you. I've corrected two more of your "excerpts", replacing the "cut ones" to the "uncut ones" ...

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

There.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

... and there.

May I ask, how is this bull? You cutting it in half is whats the bullsh*t. Its almost like your trying to cross over a political statement by ignoring and doctoring this mans arguement, seperate from what it is ...

Doctors Without Borders (doctors, nurses, medical staff who volunteer to help women and children in wartorn countries) that have been operating in some of the worst warzones for over 20 years have pulled out of Iraq due to safety concerns. They've never pulled out of a dangerous situation before. Some of the warzones they've been in: Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leon (for over a decade the UN's worst country to live in), Bosnia, Haiti etc

They dont pull out of places like Rwanda, Sudan, and Sierra Leon because they can have adequate protection at hand. The territory is not restricted to a tight city, or along some highway possibily littered with IEDs. In addition, since the murder of CARE Worker Margaret Hassan, who was tortured, executed and disemboweled and left in a Fallujah street, marked the disreguard Al-Qaeda would have for aid organizations.

They're entire goal is to upset Iraq from progress. Is it working?

It's all winge winge winge with you righties. Eeeow, they bombed us... eeeow innocent US people died.

Then again, it's all winge winge winge with you lefties. Eeeow, they're is no terrorist threat... eeeow everyone who died had it coming.

See how stupid that sounds not only coming out of you, but me? Not all of us give you guys stereotypes, unless, like now provoked. Maybe you should stop, and realize thats not half of what I'm argueing here, or what the article even describes.

(For anyone who does not know sarcasm, I am of course making a point, I think 9/11 was a horrible thing to happen)

First, I did'nt see that before in your post. Second, I'd like to say that behind every bit of sarcasm, is a truth. Hence, why I addressed it.

tyranny is a link which leads to = http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_laugh_070704,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl<br%20/>

So, we've heard the stories of the drowning. Some people identify these people were insurgents, and some hot-headed commander decided to prove to these boys not screw with US Forces by joining with Al-Qaeda, and pushed them into the river.

Others state, the US Forces simply came up, with no motive, and shoved them off. So, heres the articles main -- its cited not with military.com, but from the ...

Iraqi: Soldiers Laughed At Drowning
Associated Press
July 7, 2004

Again, not suprising. At the bottom, you can read the forums discussion about this topic. Its given the option of it, its also public viewable too.

corruption is a link which leads to = http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/images/new-iraq-old-iraq-300.jpg

What is the image cited for? Is it in an article? Or is it an upload? Does it have anything to do, let alone, discuss about this mans article?

Also for those of you who think all Muslims are out to get the "Western World" MuslimWakeUp has this video, its not graphic -- its an interview; with the makers of the website.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/blog/archives/2005/01/_my_fox_news_in.php

torture chamber is a link which leads to = http://intelwire.egoplex.com/iraqabuse2.jpg

So, what does the littlest prisoner have to do with ... this mans article? [Oh, dont rant about the integrity of my comment. The "Littlest Prisoner" was a Halloween costume skit done by Liberals.] Also, what does its feature even have to remotely do with your point -- which does'nt address the factor of which you stated, felt was "bull".

INNOCENT PEOPLE! Get that into your stupid thick head. Innocent people have died and you think it's their fault, you think they were all on the side of the 'terrorists' ('terrorists' read: enemy. Terrorists makes them sound like a threat to back home), and some were probably terrorists too.

Yes, some of those that were they're, died. Yet, the Insurgents who died with the civilians during the bombings, chose to live and hide amungst civilian targets.

Some of them, even go so far as to travel into Israel, purchase American clothing, then wear such things to distract or make passing convoys feel the area is the safe -- the same area the insurgents are planning to ambush.

So yes, that affirms your last statement -- ...

300 of the dead were women and children ..I guess to you it was there own fault

Well, lets be fair -- some of those that stayed knew the risk they were taking. I mean, its pretty much on the eve of an Coalition retake -- and you decide to stay through those days that even anticipated its taking would occur.

Thats called being stubbourn or afraid. Some were afraid, some were stubbourn.

Its unfortunate, buts how most of the Civilian casualties occured -- some also tried to leave, but were afraid to leave their homes for the fear of being killed by Insurgents.

yes I'm sure there were plenty of children running around carrying ak's and shouting anti-american slogans

Thanks for also affirming that. I was about to post pictures of it, but then you also agreed with the statement.

 

[Steve]

If this guy is so busy fighting in Iraq, how does he have so much time to watch so much CNN that he can make an educated decision on the quality of all their reporting. (He's kinda right, but still...)

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If this guy is so busy fighting in Iraq, how does he have so much time to watch so much CNN that he can make an educated decision on the quality of all their reporting.

It does'nt take much education to figure out certain media outlets are aiming for specific viewer displaced goals. Needless to say, he gets his news from watching it over in Iraq.

They have TV's for when soldiers are not out -- I would hate for them to not have a form of entertainment or informity of whats going on back home. So naturally because of this, he would see they're reports.

CORRECTIONS ON MY WRIGHTING:

So, we've heard the stories of the drowning. Some people identify these people were insurgents, and were drowned by some hot-headed US Commander. If you read what he states in the article, you do get the comparisons of "stories".

For this situation others state, the US Forces simply came up, with no motive, and shoved them off. So, heres the articles author -- its cited not with military.com, but from the ...

 

[Scoobnfl]

What the f**k planet are you living on?

Those 600 people were living there when american forces pulled up and started attacking insurgants in the town. Through cross fire, shelling, and perhaps mistaken identity 600 people are now dead. Shall we say 9/11 didn't matter cuz, well, those people shouldn't have been working in the evil corporate machine, and some of them were probably terrorists too?

INNOCENT PEOPLE! Get that into your stupid thick head. Innocent people have died and you think it's their fault, you think they were all on the side of the 'terrorists' ('terrorists' read: enemy. Terrorists makes them sound like a threat to back home), and some were probably terrorists too.

You're unbelievable.

Our attack on Fallujah was well announced and the occupants had days to get out. Those that chose to remain did so at their own risk. What is so hard to understand about that?