PDA

View Full Version : World News It's hard to believe any sane person can still think the Iraq war was a good thing...



Atomik
14-03--2006, 10:49 AM
US postwar Iraq strategy a mess, Blair was told

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Tuesday March 14, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos.

John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".


That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.

Full article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1730427,00.html).

Dharmamillo
14-03--2006, 01:43 PM
It's all the more frustrating when the general public are continuously patronised by the government.

"nothing to see here, all tickety boo"

Seeing Blair make a speech nowadays just sets me off screaming at the TV. My flatmate has banned me from the news! I check it online now.

Zonk
14-03--2006, 06:50 PM
http://www.londonclasswar.org/newswire_nowarbuttheclasswar.php

:harhar:

matthew
14-03--2006, 09:39 PM
We were right to invade Iraq

The failures of occupation may be legion, but at least we confronted Saddam at a time of our choosing

Oliver Kamm
Tuesday March 14, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1730400,00.html

Atomik
14-03--2006, 09:41 PM
Clearly not sane. :harhar:

Peace-Phoenix
15-03--2006, 06:32 AM
When I clicked on this thread, I knew that the only person to disagree would be Matthew....

phil
15-03--2006, 11:52 AM
I also actually agree it was worth it to get rid of saddam. Its been one long fuck up i admit and is utter chaos now but still the right thing to do at the time in my opinion.

Atomik
15-03--2006, 12:34 PM
Well it's not the right thing to do if we just replaced him with chaos and disorder - which, I might add, was widely predicted. It really fucking annoys me how people confuse the issue of Saddam being a cunt with the issue of the Iraq war. Yes, he was a cunt. Yes, the world would ideally be better off without him being in control of Iraq - but only if we had a better alternative and a realistic way of getting there.

stardust
15-03--2006, 12:52 PM
ditto dok!

phil
15-03--2006, 03:54 PM
I dont think i'm confused about the difference of saddam being a cunt and the issues of going to war with iraq. I just that i feel that even with all the other things it was the right thing to do.

Atomik
15-03--2006, 03:57 PM
Why? With a country on the verge of descending into civil war and anarchy, how can you possibly think that it was the right thing to do? Also, let's not forget that we didn't go to war to remove an evil dictator. We went to war to remove Iraq's WMDs.

Zonk
15-03--2006, 04:36 PM
If it's alright with God it should be good enough for you Doc! Dagnammit!"!"!


:D

Atomik
15-03--2006, 04:39 PM
Did god say it was ok? Oops. I stand corrected. :o

Zonk
15-03--2006, 04:40 PM
I dont think i'm confused about the difference of saddam being a cunt and the issues of going to war with iraq. I just that i feel that even with all the other things it was the right thing to do.

Course it was. British business has profited by at least 1.1 billion.

What the fuck could be wrong with that?????:whistle:

Atomik
15-03--2006, 04:44 PM
Good to see it was a noble cause! God save the queen! :whistle:

Zonk
15-03--2006, 04:51 PM
Good to see it was a noble cause! God save the queen! :whistle:

Aye and all who sail up her....

PeacePiper
15-03--2006, 09:15 PM
:eek: ! With a glove on?! (Or is that the colour of her skin ;) )

metal_head
15-03--2006, 10:16 PM
Aye and all who sail up her....

oh...........queeny!!!!!!!:harhar:


lol i'm drunk

matthew
16-03--2006, 08:16 PM
When I clicked on this thread, I knew that the only person to disagree would be Matthew....

Well you know my POV.. did you expect ONE flimsy article to suddenly swing my mind around to thinking i should realise i am 'insane' for continueing with thinking the way i do ?.

Do you disagree with what i posted ?

It was not meant as a objective 'rebutal'.. just another point of view.

The article posted by Dok' has quoted snippets of a overall assesment..wich is tainted by the gaurdians agenda [of course].

I won't be suprised if in a week or two in 'clarifications' ..it does not say something like ''We are sorry, Jay Garner was being objective towards this that and the other..reflecting on this that and the other..not wishing to imply this that and the other'

Like they did with 'war for oil'

Editors Note
The Guardian has removed this article from their website and has posted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html) the following:
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html), "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq."

The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

How did i know you guys would lap this kinda article up..like a thirsty dog.. drinking a huge bowl of water :whistle:

It leap frogs over 3 years of the finer points of the WHOLE situation....of ALL the points he raises and comes to a simplistic conclusion... NO i don't wish to go over ALL the points raised the 'policy differences ' he had and 'whatnot'... but you can if you wish ?.

Atomik
16-03--2006, 08:56 PM
Well you know my POV.. did you expect ONE flimsy article to suddenly swing my mind around to thinking i should realise i am 'insane' for continueing with thinking the way i do ?Article after article after article. Report after report after report. The vast, overwhelming body of evidence points to the war in Iraq being a complete disaster on just about every front. Even the US don't sound sincere anymore when they try and defend it. It's obvious to just about everyone what an unmitigated fuck-up it's been.

matthew
16-03--2006, 09:45 PM
Article after article after article. Report after report after report. .

It depends what articles you read .. it depends what reports you wish to read

NO i am not deluding myself.. before you ask.

FFS



The vast, overwhelming body of evidence points to the war in Iraq being a complete disaster on just about every front. Even the US don't sound sincere anymore when they try and defend it. It's obvious to just about everyone what an unmitigated fuck-up it's been.


Ofcourse you will say that.. i never intended to become rude within this thread.. but YOU are being completly arrogant. If you just wished to express your point of view.. WHY post some flimsy article ? . Why not explain in more detail [in your own words]? and leave it to us to come to a opinion ?. No suprise how the tide will go, but even so..

Rather than imply insanity must prevail for NOT swiftly altering a perspective just from some article .. it would be nice [every now and again] to hear of your words and thoughts... from the outset.

Atomik
16-03--2006, 09:56 PM
It depends what articles you read .. it depends what reports you wish to readNot really. I've consistently sought out information from all sides of the argument. Your particular arrogance is to assume that I want to believe the war is a bad thing, and that I only seek information that confirms that point of view. This is an error that you've made repeatedly in the past. Whereas the truth is that I've followed all reporting on the situation in Iraq, and the vast body of evidence points to it being an absolute disaster. I'd be glad to discover some evidence that Iraq is stabilising and that there's some hope for the country. I'm not some idealogue who wants to see the West fail on general principle as you seem to assume.

matthew
16-03--2006, 09:59 PM
Not really. I've consistently sought out information from all sides of the argument. Your particular arrogance is to assume that I want to believe the war is a bad thing, and that I only seek information that confirms that point of view. This is an error that you've made repeatedly in the past. Whereas the truth is that I've followed all reporting on the situation in Iraq, and the vast body of evidence points to it being an absolute disaster. I'd be glad to discover some evidence that Iraq is stabilising and that there's some hope for the country. I'm not some idealogue who wants to see the West fail on general principle as you seem to assume.

Fair enough i WILL NOT assume anything..failing to see anything POSITIVE from yourself.. I MAY have been hasty... even so the tone of this thread PISSED ME OFF.. because of its assumptions..

matthew
16-03--2006, 10:04 PM
I'd be glad to discover some evidence that Iraq is stabilising and that there's some hope for the country. I'm not some idealogue who wants to see the West fail on general principle as you seem to assume.

I'll see what i can do for you

matthew
16-03--2006, 10:15 PM
https://www422.ssldomain.com/uniraq/documents/R&D%20Update%20Dec2005Jan2006.pdf

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8661.doc.htm

Atomik
16-03--2006, 10:58 PM
I'll see what i can do for youOnly one link works. And I didn't see much in the other link to counter the opinion that Iraq is on the verge of collapsing into civil war.

Milo
17-03--2006, 09:11 AM
If you just wished to express your point of view.. WHY post some flimsy article ? . Why not explain in more detail [in your own words]? and leave it to us to come to a opinion ?.

Rather than imply insanity must prevail for NOT swiftly altering a perspective just from some article .. it would be nice [every now and again] to hear of your words and thoughts... from the outset.

If an apparently well thought-out article suits what any one of us wants to say, then we will use it. If we want to. We may accompany it with our own words in order to explain our thoughts, or we may not. There is no compulsion to post in the way you describe, is there.

Matthew, (Mary), quite contrary,
Where does your wisdom grow?

Have you yet read Mark Curtis' "Web of Deceit - Britain's Real Role in the World"? I seriously suggest that before you do you take yourself right back to square one and ask yourself, "Is war right?" and "Is peace better?".

Does compassion fit into your thinking? "Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone. This is the ancient law." The Dalai Lama.

matthew
19-03--2006, 12:18 PM
If an apparently well thought-out article suits what any one of us wants to say, then we will use it. If we want to. We may accompany it with our own words in order to explain our thoughts, or we may not. There is no compulsion to post in the way you describe, is there.

Perfectly acceptable... why i asked for his own thoughts.. was beacause he was implying something based on a assesment and opinion that was 3 years out of touch .. Hindsight being what it is we can see if these claims proved to be true or false.. He could argue it ''perfectly reflects what is going on at the moment'' or ''History bares these claims out'' thats a fairly reasonable arguement to make.. and something we could reflect on. This is NOT what he said though. Are we supposed to just short hand Dok's point from a article ?.. are we supposed to put words in Dok's mouth ? surely not !.

If all Dok is saying is

''It's hard to believe any sane person can still think the Iraq war was a good thing...''

Then YES i DO think the Iraq war was a 'good thing'... I would argue what SANE person can not see it was a 'good thing'.

I'll do the same

"Saddam is in a class of his own as a tyrant... He is alone among the present regimes in the world to have systematically used those weapons against his own people... He is willing to use any means whatsoever to remain in power."
John Sawers
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/616/focus.htm






Matthew, (Mary), quite contrary,
Where does your wisdom grow?


Not from one article ....


Have you yet read Mark Curtis' "Web of Deceit - Britain's Real Role in the World"? I seriously suggest that before you do you take yourself right back to square one and ask yourself, "Is war right?" and "Is peace better?".

Of course peace is better..if diplomacy had worked..if saddam had complied.. We would not be in the situation we have.


Does compassion fit into your thinking? "Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone. This is the ancient law." The Dalai Lama.

Of course it fucking does:mad: ..sorry for that little outburst..:o Yes of course comapssion informs my thinking.



Originally Posted by Doktor Atomik
Only one link works. And I didn't see much in the other link to counter the opinion that Iraq is on the verge of collapsing into civil war.



A little slap dash of me apologies for that... i was not trying to counter your claim of 'civil war'.
I was attempting to highlight Iraq is 'stabilising and that there's some hope for the country'...thats what you asked, right ?.

P.s..if you are still interested i fixed the problem.

Atomik
20-03--2006, 08:36 AM
Not from one article ....It's not just one article though, is it Matthew? It's the vast, overwhelming body of opinion. Article after article after article. Report after report after report. While you have to scrabble round in the crumbs to try and find any slight sign of hope that things might be improving. I don't know why you're so reluctant to believe the evidence that's staring you in the face. Seeing as you keep dismissing anything from the Guardian or BBC as biased, here's a little something from The Times... hardly a bastion of right-wing journalism:




'I hate to say it, but we were better off under Saddam'
By Nick Meo
Three years after dictator's fall our correspondent is reunited with his two Baghdad guides, whose euphoria has given way to despair

Full article here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2091232,00.html).

matthew
21-03--2006, 06:23 PM
[quote=Doktor Atomik]It's not just one article though, is it Matthew? It's the vast, overwhelming body of opinion. Article after article after article. Report after report after report. While you have to scrabble round in the crumbs to try and find any slight sign of hope that things might be improving. I don't know why you're so reluctant to believe the evidence that's staring you in the face. Seeing as you keep dismissing anything from the Guardian or BBC as biased, here's a little something from The Times... hardly a bastion of right-wing journalism:


Full article here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2091232,00.html).

I HAVE noticed it IS a overwhelming opinion..of whom ?? western pundits and the western media..



I think recently due to it being the 3 year anniversary.. every one is taking stock.. events have overtaken us a little .. You seem to have pre-empted the debate about 'civil war'.. Conflicting reports .. journalists grasping at the ex primeministers talk of 'civil war'.. etc etc .

Reid to deny Iraq civil war claim (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1769464.html)

John Reid claiming he and the Iraq leaders on ALL sides conceding secterian violence is prevelant in 4 of the 18 provinces .. but their being NO civil war...
Baghdad being a 'hot spot'... and the place OBL and his 'man in Iraq' wish to destabilise.

A place that has a bigger mix of differing 'factions' ripe for 'civil war'..
Leaders have to and are giveing as much support to the civillians who get caught up in all the groups on all sides baiting each other.. Lets NOT let it become a self fulfilling prophecy.

I don't care were you get your reports from Dok' .. i got my earlier article from the gaurdian.. i post articles from both the BBC and the gaurdian..
I had noticed on BBC news 24 the tag line of ''Iyad Allawi:civil war'' .. this is what i suspect they wish .. almost giving the insurgency what they wish as this is seemingly a 'better story'..

I MIGHT have to 'scrable about' ... the fact is the western media are just reporting this as a 'civil war'..based on one comment and highlighting parts of Iraq that are in most strife.. Ignoring to a great degree the provinces that are relatively stable... NOT taking into consideration or just ignoring the leaders who would i imagine no better than them and us.. and have no axe do grind.

Even if you think they are fooling themselves..you have to respect there opinion.

imho i agree with this

''I think now is a transitional time for Iraq.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4805322.stm shock horror from the BBC



Another blog, 24 Steps to Liberty (http://twentyfourstepstoliberty.blogspot.com/), encourages Iraqis not to lose hope amidst the violence and chides foreign media.


Salam's success inspired Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/), a 26-year-old Iraqi who has a degree in computer science, to follow suit. Her blog was novel


On Sunday, she hailed Shia and Sunni co-operation defying the worsening sectarian tensions:

"It does not feel like civil war because Sunnis and Shia have been showing solidarity these last few days in a big way. I don't mean the clerics or the religious zealots or the politicians - but the average person. Our neighbourhood is mixed, and Sunnis and Shia alike have been outraged with the attacks on mosques and shrines."

Another blog, 24 Steps to Liberty (http://twentyfourstepstoliberty.blogspot.com/), encourages Iraqis not to lose hope amidst the violence and chides foreign media.


"Almost no newspaper showed how great, it appeared to us, the solidarity among Iraqis was yesterday," he wrote.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/314EA524-4FF3-4993-A7D2-C4B90D09F047.htm

Atomik
21-03--2006, 07:06 PM
I HAVE noticed it IS a overwhelming opinion..of whom ?? western pundits and the western media.. And the media is predominantly pro-government and pro-establishment, so surely it must seem a little odd to you that they're so keen to promote the idea of Iraq being in chaos if everything's really rosey?


John Reid claiming...Quoting labour politicians? Well that really is scraping the barrel. ;)


I don't care were you get your reports from Dok' .. But you do. Whenever I quote the BBC or the Guardian you tell me they're biased!


''Iyad Allawi:civil war'' .. this is what i suspect they wish .. almost giving the insurgency what they wish as this is seemingly a 'better story'..You think the BBC want civil war? There's no reasoning with you if you hold that opinion. Journalists reporting from Iraq are in fear of their lives for fucks sake.


I MIGHT have to 'scrable about' ...You're taking a minority opinion over the vast quantity of informed opinion that holds a contrary point of view. Surely you must understand how this undermines your credibility? How many sources need to say Iraq is in chaos before you'll accept that position? Will you deny it right up until civil war breaks out fully? What evidence do you require?

matthew
21-03--2006, 07:49 PM
And the media is predominantly pro-government and pro-establishment, so surely it must seem a little odd to you that they're so keen to promote the idea of Iraq being in chaos if everything's really rosey?

I don't agree so don't find it odd..

I never claimed 'every thing was rosey'.. if the media is slanted the way you presume..i must have been watching and reading other media for the last 3 years or so.


Quoting labour politicians? Well that really is scraping the barrel. ;)

No not really... as he has spoken to the leaders of the region.. should we ignore what they have to say ?? like i have already said before !!




But you do. Whenever I quote the BBC or the Guardian you tell me they're biased!

WHEN ? i don't think many times ..i may disagree with the opinion.. i admit my view on them varys and maybe i band about 'biased' sometimes .. to a degree they are.


You think the BBC want civil war? There's no reasoning with you if you hold that opinion. Journalists reporting from Iraq are in fear of their lives for fucks sake.

No of course not.. but WILL run with the most controversial story.
Also the prevailing mood of the media in general..as they are lazy bastards when it comes to their mainstream news broadcasts.. and can't be arsed to give a differing view of the situation, only hint at it.
The justification to deem this a 'civil war' was based on a comment.. and some pictures of Iraqi hot spots ..
It is the norm for them to have a 'mainstream opinion' on their news..but if you listen and watch other less provincial commentary from the BBC.. you would appreciate it is a opinion not fact...and their ARE many other opinions.

I will accept it IS 'civil war' when i think it is ... not skip to the beat of the mainstream media .. thanks.

I am NOT going to go around posting pod casts .. as if you HAVE been taking note of varying opinion you WOULD have heard the various OTHER assesments.




You're taking a minority opinion over the vast quantity of informed opinion that holds a contrary point of view. Surely you must understand how this undermines your credibility? How many sources need to say Iraq is in chaos before you'll accept that position? Will you deny it right up until civil war breaks out fully? What evidence do you require?





A minority opinion ? what do you want me to do post 12 pages of opinion and reporting favouring my opinion ? .. I have just given some views of people who are [B]actually living in baghdad/Iraq.. ?.. over political pundits sitting in nice warm studios in London.. or swivel chairs in fleet street... YES journalists in Iraq HAVE been parroting the arguement about 'Civil war' but thats because thats the agenda over here.. If you watch/listen to the more in depth reports it is a bit of different story..

I accept certain regions in Iraq ARE in chaos, i never claimed otherwise.

Thanks for not dismissing the views of people who live in Iraq..

Atomik
22-03--2006, 12:03 AM
No not really... as he has spoken to the leaders of the region.. should we ignore what they have to say ?? like i have already said before !!Well you seem to want it both ways. Whenever someone quotes an opinion with which you disagree, you accuse the source of being biased. And yet when you find someone who holds an opinion with which you do agree, you conveniently overlook the most blatantly obvious bias... in this instance, a Labour politician. That's pretty blatant double standards. While I don't believe journalists are beyond reproach, they're certainly a less prejudiced source of information that politicians.


No of course not.. but WILL run with the most controversial story.I utterly disagree. If the BBC wanted to be controversial, they could be much more aggressive with their reporting in Iraq.


The justification to deem this a 'civil war' was based on a comment.. and some pictures of Iraqi hot spots [baghdad for e.g]CIA officers in Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm) believe the country is slipping towards civil war. Shia leaders (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html) believe Iraq is heading towards civil war. Military experts (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=1689688&page=1) believe Iraq is heading towards civil war. The US ambassador to Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4784626.stm) warns of civil war. The Iraqi government (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC534740.htm) fears civil war. Even the majority of Americans (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm) believe Iraq is heading towards civil war!


I will accept it IS 'civil war' when i think it is ... not skip to the beat of the mainstream media .. thanks.Care to put a body count on that? Cozs it's getting kinda high already! Just a ballpark figure...


Thanks for not dismissing the views of people who live in Iraq.. Don't mention it (http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=057).

matthew
22-03--2006, 07:19 PM
Well you seem to want it both ways. Whenever someone quotes an opinion with which you disagree, you accuse the source of being biased. And yet when you find someone who holds an opinion with which you do agree, you conveniently overlook the most blatantly obvious bias... in this instance, a Labour politician. That's pretty blatant double standards.

I think you are being a little unfair and generalising a little..ofcourse i may miss the 'bias'.. but we ALL do when we read information, YOU may think you don't ?.
People see things differently obviously.
You don't quite see a bias in your initial article ? .... you think it is perfectly reasonable etc etc etc .. well i think it is 'biased'.
Probably a wrong phrase to use, maybe i should ''respect the opinion and coherently argue why i disagree''.. well fuck me sometimes i don't.
You might.. but basicaly we are both thinking it is 'not right'.

Every day we hear about it from the mainstream media, telling us that the sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims are turning bloodier and bloodier by the day. Fears jumped when the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra, a Shia holy site, was bombed and reprisals began against Sunnis. Over 50 Sunni mosques were damaged and three Imams were killed following the initial attack. The question now is whether or not this is just the beginning of a larger conflict that has the potential of engulfing the entire nation.





“It will take Iraqis something like a quarter of a century to rebuild their country, to heal their wounds, to reform their society, to bring about some sort of national reconciliation, democracy and tolerance of each other. But that process will not begin until the US occupation of Iraq ends.”
- Wamid Omar Nadhmi, Baghdad University



Word on the street is that Iraq is headed toward civil war. Every day we hear about it from the mainstream media, telling us that the sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims are turning bloodier and bloodier by the day. Fears jumped when the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra, a Shia holy site, was bombed and reprisals began against Sunnis. Over 50 Sunni mosques were damaged and three Imams were killed following the initial attack. The question now is whether or not this is just the beginning of a larger conflict that has the potential of engulfing the entire nation.

The problem is that we are hearing our information from a very dubious source [the media]. Not that everything we are hearing is wrong, but what aren’t we hearing, and why aren’t we hearing it?.
Most news that comes from Iraq may not reflect what the majority [not the minority that shoot their guns in the air and are against the 'war' and of course the insurgency blowing every mother fucker up regardless..]
Correspondents for the main papers and TV stations do their jobs from inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, far from the explosions and gunfire they report on. They rely on military press conferences and Iraqi aides to bring them information and interviews from outside the walls, and then they turn it into a story, allowing them to analyse the events from their own perspective [remember.... if it bleeds, it leads].



So after the attack on the Al Askari Mosque we saw widespread violence. But what we didn’t see was that the violence ended just as quickly as it began, and was replaced by acts of solidarity. Shia leaders told their followers not to commit acts of revenge, acts which were immediately followed by a show of determination to unite. Thousands of Sunni joined the Shia demonstrations to call for an end to the violence.

Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani issued a statement following the Al Askari attack

“We call upon believers to express their protest ... through peaceful means. The extent of their sorrow and shock should not drag them into taking actions that serve the enemies who have been working to lead Iraq into sectarian strife.”

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=12942&TagID=2

To be honest i believe both Sunnis and Shias are being told by their leaders it is the ''US coallition'' that carries out these attacks on mosques.. it seems we are all being 'played' .
OBL seems to be doing his work very well... would you not agree ?.

Even if it is a unity to get us the fuck out.. thats gotta be better than 'civil war'.




While I don't believe journalists are beyond reproach, they're certainly a less prejudiced source of information that politicians.

Well maybe we just trust differing sources.. i see journalists as 'articulate defenders of a position'.. but think about when you read say the Daily Mail.. i imagine you may have a differing opinion on those journalists ?.


I utterly disagree. If the BBC wanted to be controversial, they could be much more aggressive with their reporting in Iraq.

I just mean in this case they 'dropped the dead donkey' and went with the ''Iyad Allawi:civil war''.. now the story is over, no mention of it.. they have moved on.
Now it's ''Bush:no civil war'' maybe not controversial in this case but something to cause a stir.. do you know what i mean ?.


CIA officers in Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm) believe the country is slipping towards civil war. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm)Shia leaders (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html) believe Iraq is heading towards civil war. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm)Military experts (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=1689688&page=1) believe Iraq is heading towards civil war. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm)The US ambassador to Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4784626.stm) warns of civil war. The (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm)Iraqi government (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC534740.htm) fears civil war. Even the (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm)majority of Americans (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm) believe Iraq is heading towards civil war! (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm)

I am NOT just posting the same thing but different [if that makes sense].. no point.




Care to put a body count on that? Cozs it's getting kinda high already! Just a ballpark figure...

Sorry for this ... FUCK OFF... i aint into 'body counts' how fucking rude.



(http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=057)
Don't mention it (http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=057).
(http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=057)

posting old information

This article by journalist Doi Toshikuni appeared in Shukan Kinyobi, July 4, 2003.

Wow iraqis with differing opinions..and incidents not relating to NOW

Whatever next me mentioning elections/ women voteing / women being able to go to school / Marshlands being put back to a considerable better state than saddam left them / a constitution / ???? now who is 'scrambling and loseing credibility'..

Atomik
22-03--2006, 09:32 PM
I think you are being a little unfair and generalising a little..ofcourse i may miss the 'bias'.. but we ALL do when we read information, YOU may think you don't ?.
People see things differently obviously.Absolutely. But accusing journalists of bias and then quoting politicians is a little hypocritical is all. I also think the charge of 'bias' where journalists are concerned is a little dubious, but much more obvious in the case of politicians.


The problem is that we are hearing our information from a very dubious source [the media].I think it's tremendously unfair to blanket the whole of the British and international media with the accusation of bias, when many journalists are risking their lives to bring us reports out of Iraq. Frankly, I see no reason for them to misrepresent the situation. You might argue that conflict sells more papers - which I think it a pretty thin argument where the broadsheets are concerned anyway - but there's an equally strong case that says positive stories coming out of Iraq would sell papers. The public want to feel the world is secure. Frankly, I think they'd lap up any good news at the moment.


Correspondents for the main papers and TV stations do their jobs from inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, far from the explosions and gunfire they report on. Massive generalisation! Al-Jazeera certainly have journalists on the streets, and they're of much the same opinion as the rest of the press.


They rely on military press conferences and Iraqi aides to bring them information and interviews from outside the wallsWell you might think if that was the case the military would be bringing the journalists good news.


Even if it is a unity to get us the fuck out.. thats gotta be better than 'civil war'. Now that I'd agree with. But I doubt it'll happen.


Well maybe we just trust differing sources.. i see journalists as 'articulate defenders of a position'.. but think about when you read say the Daily Mail.. i imagine you may have a differing opinion on those journalists ?.Well no.... not necessarily. I actually trust the Daily Mail journalists to report the facts in a lot of cases - it's their opinions that I'd challenge.

But yes, it does come down to which sources you trust. But like I said, there's a whole world of people out there who're deeply worried about the situation in Iraq. It's not like it's just journalists.


Sorry for this ... FUCK OFF... i aint into 'body counts' how fucking rude.Keep it civil. Next comment like that and I'll delete it. I asked you a perfectly valid and polite question - how high does the body count have to rise before you accept that Iraq has descended into civil war? Decline to answer by all means, but watch your mouth.


posting old information Well you must be one of a very small number of people who think the situation in Iraq has improved over the last couple of years!

Starke Ravinmad
26-03--2006, 01:42 AM
http://www.logictimes.com/flowchart.htm

Atomik
26-03--2006, 09:28 AM
http://www.logictimes.com/flowchart.htmhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

Golaf
26-03--2006, 12:07 PM
well the politicians are just following orders from above, it was not Tony Blair or George Bush that decided they should goto War, they were just following orders. All they are is the public face of the Evil Babalonian Empire of Alien clones that brings only death and destruction to the World, we mere mortals have no say and anyone who opposes the system will be used as sacrifical lambs to feed the hungry greedy bellies of the rich elite who are drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."

matthew
26-03--2006, 12:21 PM
well the politicians are just following orders from above, it was not Tony Blair or George Bush that decided they should goto War, they were just following orders. All they are is the public face of the Evil Babalonian Empire of Alien clones that brings only death and destruction to the World, we mere mortals have no say and anyone who opposes the system will be used as sacrifical lambs to feed the hungry greedy bellies of the rich elite who are drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."

Did you put your clock forward or back ?.. anyhoo i reckon you may need a extra hour in bed :p



(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda)http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda)

?

Starke Ravinmad
26-03--2006, 05:14 PM
It means "I can't argue with the logic."

matthew
27-03--2006, 07:17 PM
It means "I can't argue with the logic."

Interesting post.. no comment if the logic can't or can be argued :whistle: .

Starke Ravinmad
28-03--2006, 12:42 AM
Aren't politics fun?? :madlol:

matthew
28-03--2006, 08:05 PM
Aren't politics fun?? :madlol:


:cool: i get my kicks from champagne :wiggle: