Al Jazeera is a disgrace

[chicot]

Lefthook.org. I didnt even open it up.

I did throw a couple of those when I played Hockey, does that count? Or were they haymakers? Damn, cant remember.

333184[/snapback]

 

"Lefthook.org. I didnt even open it up."

 

Which explains quite a lot.

[Alaska Darin]

Hey, it's 1.30 am here! When I get the chance, I'll try to dig up the original NYT article.

333185[/snapback]

Doesn't matter, considering the dude who wrote it is the owner of the website. I sincerely hope you're not in the same political boat as the 21 year old who wrote that hate infested drivel.

[chicot]

You'll go round and round with him on this. Ask him about his family over there, and if they are supporting the new gov. Or supporting anything else. I have my suspicions.

333150[/snapback]

 

The fact that you have your suspicions just shows how much of a cocoon you are living in. You seem to be completely unable to conceive that any Iraqi could disagree with the US presence in Iraq and not be a gun-runner or Baathist.My opinions are my own. In actual fact, some of my relatives get on very well with the US troops and may well agree more with you than with me. No doubt you won't believe me. How could anyone not agree with the US presence in Iraq and not be a gun-runner or a Baathist? You might want to check out the blog in the link below, it's quite well-known and has just been published as a book. It might give you a different perspective (but then again, it probably won't since you'll automatically assume her family was somehow connected with Saddam).

 

Baghdad Burning

[erynthered]

"Lefthook.org. I didnt even open it up."

 

Which explains quite a lot.

333187[/snapback]

 

What does it explain? Maybe that your point could be , or maybe have an agenda?

Chicot, If I posted a link that said rightwing!@#$ershatearabterroristsympathizers.org, That could be indicative of what could be on their site, no?

[chicot]

What does it explain? Maybe that your point could be , or maybe have an agenda?

Chicot, If I posted a link that said rightwing!@#$ershatearabterroristsympathizers.org, That could be indicative of what could be on their site, no?

333195[/snapback]

 

It explains why you're so astonished by opinions that don't mesh easily with your own that you have to invent outlandish theories as to why people hold these opinions. You're so close-minded that you can't even bother to listen to other arguments.

[erynthered]

It explains why you're so astonished by opinions that don't mesh easily with your own that you have to invent outlandish theories as to why people hold these opinions. You're so close-minded that you can't even bother to listen to other arguments.

333196[/snapback]

 

 

That’s not true, my young Iraqi friend. I’ve asked questions in the past to better understand your plight. However, you failed to answer those questions to my satisfaction. Remember?

 

I have children, young children. You have to be a patient man to have children. Therefore this makes me more than qualified to be open about anything. You underestimate me chicot, but I don’t under underestimate you.

[chicot]

That’s not true, my young Iraqi friend. I’ve asked questions in the past to better understand your plight. However, you failed to answer those questions to my satisfaction. Remember?

 

I have children, young children. You have to be a patient man to have children. Therefore this makes me more than qualified to be open about anything. You underestimate me chicot, but I don’t under underestimate you.

333201[/snapback]

 

Actually I answered your questions openly and honestly, but because my answers didn't fit with your preconceived notions you chose to ignore them.

[erynthered]

Actually I answered your questions openly and honestly, but because my answers didn't fit with your preconceived notions you chose to ignore them.

333204[/snapback]

 

No, not really. I thought they were vauge and Elusive. Look, this isn’t Judge Judy chicot. Your writings over the last few years indicate to me that I think you’re full of sh*t. My participation in the threads really don’t contribute to the overall discussion, and you know that. But you feel compelled to defend yourself at every given moment with me, why is that?. I’ve sat across from lotsa of folks in my life chocot, and to me that’s an indication of bullsh*t. Take it how you will, hell, you may even have some friends here that’ll back you up. I think you’re part of the problem.

 

What's it 2 Am there now? Getting tired? Getting angry?

 

 

Go to bed

[Kelly the Dog]

The insurgents attack Iraqis and police forces and not Americans 99% of the time because, DUH, they CAN.

 

Which would you hit? The newly or barely armed, insufficiently trained guys sitting out in the open, OR, the most highly trained, well equipped, extremely prepared, highly insulated, most deadly fighting force in the world?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Nice websight. 

333181[/snapback]

 

"Website".

 

You're really off on your spelling today. Are you channelling VABills or something?

[SilverNRed]

Nice websight. 

333181[/snapback]

 

Interesting use of graphs anyway.

 

Excerpt from the article:

One can clearly see that the number of attacks on "Coalition Forces" far exceeds that of any other category on the list. Indeed, attacks on military occupying forces, and by extension mostly US military forces, accounts for 75% of all attacks. Meanwhile, civilian targets comprise a mere 4.1% of attacks. This reality is at striking odds with the general picture painted in the press of a narcissistic, mindless and sinister insurgency simply bent on chaos and destruction.

 

Of course, the "number of attacks" isn't the same thing as the "number of casualties as a result of attacks". There is some difference between attacking a convoy of Marines (which results in you dying and maybe not much else) and attacking a couple dozen people with a car bomb (which only results in two dozen men, women, and children dying).

 

Let's keep it simple. How many Iraqis died this past week? How many coalition troops died this past week?

 

Ho hum, why am I not surprised that a website called "Left Hook" is basically demonizing United States for not properly portryaing the murderous thugs - er, armed resistance - in Iraq?

[SilverNRed]

The insurgents attack Iraqis and police forces and not Americans 99% of the time because, DUH, they CAN.

 

Which would you hit? The newly or barely armed, insufficiently trained guys sitting out in the open, OR, the most highly trained, well equipped, extremely prepared, highly insulated, most deadly fighting force in the world?

333217[/snapback]

Exactly. Any time the "armed resistance" attempts to engage coalition forces in a standup fight, they get decimated. Bottom line is they have a lot more success killing women and children, which is why you hear about a lot more Iraqis dying than U.S. servicemen and women these days.

[blzrul]

An article in this past Sunday's Seattle PI actually dealt with the fact that the US Government is now "allying" itself with Al Jazeera in order to get out the word about "democracy in the Middle East"....and Al Jazeera is apparently reporting same. That is when it exists - what the gov't hails as a major victory for democracy isn't always perceived to be so. But Al Jazeera could be a good tool that could help sway opinion. Like it or not, Al Jazeera is the source of news for the area. Learning to use it is much more effective than railing against it.

[chicot]

No, not really. I thought they were vauge and Elusive. Look, this isn’t Judge Judy chicot. Your writings over the last few years indicate to me that I think you’re full of sh*t. My participation in the threads really don’t contribute to the overall discussion, and you know that. But you feel compelled to defend yourself at every given moment with me, why is that?. I’ve sat across from lotsa of folks in my life chocot, and to me that’s an indication of bullsh*t. Take it how you will, hell, you may even have some friends here that’ll back you up. I think you’re part of the problem.

 

What's it 2 Am there now? Getting tired? Getting angry? 

Go to bed

333207[/snapback]

 

I've already been to bed thanks. So I'm part of the problem? Yeah right, if it wasn't for me there would be no violence in Iraq Of course I defend myself when you make personal accusations against me. No doubt if I chose to ignore them you would label me "vauge and elusive". As you said, your participation in the threads don't really contribute to the overall discussion. Why is that? If your case is so strong, why don't you actually try to argue it (as others are doing) rather than relying on insinuations of a personal nature?

[chicot]

Doesn't matter, considering the dude who wrote it is the owner of the website.  I sincerely hope you're not in the same political boat as the 21 year old who wrote that hate infested drivel.

333191[/snapback]

 

Doesn't matter? I'm no expert in US law but are national newspapers in the habit of manufacturing data and then passing it off as coming from the department of defense?

[chicot]

The inherent flaw in the logic of Jazeera's reporting is that while it labels the US as an occupying force, it ignores the role of foreign fighters that are stroking the insurgency. 

 

You are right, the opposition takes many colors and flavors.  But the ongoing offensive is done to root out the core of the resistance that is heavily fortified with foreign influence.  Why was there no mention of that tidbit in the Jazeera story?  Why are Syrians allowed a free pass to blow up Iraqis, by Jazeera?

 

You can evoke all the polls that show most ordinary Iraqis would like to have US leave as soon as practicable.  The same polls also show that most ordinary Iraqis don't want the foreign insurgents in their country NOW.

 

Wouldn't it be great if Jazeera covered that little story?

332842[/snapback]

 

Al-Jazeera routinely directly quotes US claims about foreign fighters. It is left up to the reader whether or not they choose to believe them. Yes, most Iraqis don't want the foreign insurgents in their country. They are widely believed to have been behind a disproportionate amount of the worst attacks on Iraqi civilians, which seems fairly plausible to me at least. However, do you believe that if you could wave a magic wand and cause all the foreign insurgents to disappear today that the insurgency would cease? I doubt it.

[chicot]

bull sh--.

 

Because if that was the case, nobody would have shown up to vote in the Iraqi elections. The fact that the turnout was so big proves without a doubt that the vast majority of Iraqis see the new government as legit.

332836[/snapback]

 

There was indeed high hopes for the new government. However, a lot of that has turned to disillusionment for many Iraqis since it has spent the last three months arguing the toss and doing virtually nothing. It's also worth remembering that one of the major policies of the Shiite alliance that won the majority of the seats was the establishment of a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.

[chicot]

Not only are they NOT, but they have decided to do so under their own volition, taking the stance, get this, that if they ever want to see the U.S. LEAVE Iraqi it would be prudent to get ON BOARD with the joint American/Iraqi efforts to rebuild the country to help achieve the ultimate goal of a U.S. pullout and the formation of a true Iraqi government.

 

Imagine that.

 

Chicot...youre on the clock.......

332889[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure that Mogtada Al-Sadr would put it quite like that. Yes, the Mehdi Army are cooperating with the US in the rebuilding of Sadr city, but I doubt that they buy into the US plans for Iraq to quite the extent that you seem to believe.

[RkFast]

I'm not sure that Mogtada Al-Sadr would put it quite like that. Yes, the Mehdi Army are cooperating with the US in the rebuilding of Sadr city, but I doubt that they buy into the US plans for Iraq to quite the extent that you seem to believe.

333381[/snapback]

 

Dont get me wrong, I dont think Al Sadr is now an ally. But the basic reason why he's stopped fighting is clear.

 

BTW...attacks today were aimed at an Iraqi police station and in a small market. According to MSNBC, whom I trust a BIT more than Lefthook.com, the Insurgents are attempting to "block a key goal of U.S. forces: to one day be replaced by newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police."

 

So....

 

If these Insurgents are fightings to end the U.S. occupation, as you claim, then why would they thwart efforts by the U.S. and Iraq to complete one of the key goals of a handover; i.e. transfer responsibility for security and policing back to the Iraqis?

 

Your'e on the clock again.................

[SilverNRed]

As long as people are 'on the clock', does anyone want to field my question from yesterday?

 

What is the 'armed resistance' actually trying to achieve?  Most of Iraq is against them and just wants to move on and into the future.  This BS about killing anyone and everyone they can (apparently because US forces are repelling their attacks too easily) doesn't seem to be helping anyone.

 

They're all terrorists.  I could care less about their feelings and if they don't like the coalition being there to rebuild their country.  Bottom line is that they absolutely can't win this thing so any killing they do is completely senseless.  They're not fighting because they have a chance to win, they're fighting because they're mad.  They're killing out of anger.

333132[/snapback]

 

Anyone? Bueller?