Latest Iraq news

[miamijc]

The BBC is reporting that Saddam now has:

- Soldiers in Baghdad on tops of schools and hospitals firing at U.S. and British troops, knowing that the allied forces do not want to fire back on these locations

- Soldiers pretending to surrender, then opening fire when allied forces get within range

- Soldiers in Basra firing on large groups of Iraqi citizens who are attempting to revolt against the 1,000 of Saddams men there.

- Soldiers wearing U.S. and British uniforms killing Iraqi citizens

This is being reported by British news. Kay, Goat you guys get any of this stuff in Holland?

[BlueYaws]

Haven't been watching the news this evening.

- Soldiers pretending to surrender, then opening fire when allied forces get within range
- Soldiers wearing U.S. and British uniforms killing Iraqi citizens

I've seen this yesterday on the news, or this morning.

[PYMPTYPE]

lol and you label this "latest iraq news" like you were gonna tell a whole story or give it from a non-biased perspective. i kinda expected some kinda joke at least :P

al jazerra is reporting that iraq's unit 35 or whatever it was never surrendered but that was just a psychological war tactic the US was using through the media to try to convince more iraqi's to surrender. i'm not saying this is definately the case but it wouldn't supprise me. kind of interesting especially since the US media was using the fact that saddam mentioned this division fighting bravely as evidence that his tv appearence might have been taped and he might in fact be dead or wounded. whatever the case i still think he is alive, if he is dead and iraq is still fighting like this that says a little something about them "being liberated"

[miamijc]

Um, can you really use the term "non-biased" then quote something from al jazerra? LAMO!!! And who are the hundreds/thousands of Arabs in Iraqi uniforms who have been shown over and over again in custody of allied troops? Let me guess, they are actors, brought over there to surrender right?

And how the hell is that psychological war tactics when the Iraqi soldiers do not have access to British or American news??? All media in Iraq is sensored by Saddam, and the soldiers stationed in these cities, most of which have been without power for several days since the fighting started CERTAINLY do not have access to the latest BBC broadcasts. And how could the allied forces make this up if this unit of Iraqi soldiers had not surrendered, but were still in Iraq? Wouldn't they just call up the other Iraqi units and say "Hey, we are still here"? How could that possibly be war tactics against the other Iraqi soldiers??? But I guess you are right. It is all an elaborate scheme using actors paid to enter a war zone, put on Iraqi uniforms and surender (because we know how many actors support the war effort, especially Muslim ones), created to broadcast fake news so that Iraqi soldiers, with no access to this news in the first place, and without electricity even if they did have some means to watch NBC to hear this made up news. LMAO! FFS, the allied forces drop paper leaflets to try to get messages across to the Iraqi people and soldiers because they know that Saddam blocks all access to the media inside Iraq.

Do you spend any time at all actually thinking about the things you say, or is it just a reflex to type something anti-American in EVERY post you read? This thread was not meant to be a debate, rather to find out if people in other parts of the world were hearing the same things, but as usual, you turn EVERY post related in any way to politics to shit.

[BlkPagan]

Pymp, this is your last warning. Stop with your stupid shit on trying to make people look stupid. I don't care if you or your 2 other friends bitch and moan about being banned, numerous people are severly pissed at you for being just a big ole tard. And yes, it's my board.

Watch CNN, it's the most liberal news station that the US shows nationally.

[PYMPTYPE]

ffs what did i do. i just linked told you what al jazerra is reporting i even said i don't know if it was true. al jazerra is not really known for making stuff like this up that could easily be proven wrong, but who knows. blkpagan take a chill pill. i also dont see how this is anti-american i think it is smart to use psych warfare to convince people to surrender. good point about the iraqis not seeing our news though i didn't think of that.

[BlkPagan]

al jazerra is control by Iraq. US media is only semi controlled by government.

[PYMPTYPE]

actually al jazerra is stationed in quwait. iraqitv is owned by iraq.

but okay i am tired of pissing people off so i won't post anything political for a week. i know miami and duff are gonna be sad about this :( but if they want to argue they know my msn.

apymptype@hotmail.com

[c0ld]

[email=you@site.com]Link Text[/email

[Massacure]

The only thing the U.S. and canada do with their media is make sure they dont broadcast too much blood, porn, or racial threats etc. . .

[Apocalypse Void]

I dont think pymp should be banned for his opinion :\ But pymp pagan is right, you need to try and stay away from saying stuff like "lol and you label this "latest iraq news" like you were gonna tell a whole story or give it from a non-biased perspective. i kinda expected some kinda joke at least :P" Maybe it was a joke but remember this is an American based baord. I think, what, 70% of this board is american? Just please in the house of debate feel free to say whatever you want about your opinion bc thats what we do there. We all voice our opinions. But in a thread like this it may be best to just not start anything.


Just my arbitrary perspective

[miamijc]

Originally posted by PYMPTYPE
good point about the iraqis not seeing our news though i didn't think of that.

This is exactly the thing I am talking about. I am convinced that if you actually slowed down and thought about a lot of this stuff, you might see things a little differently. Not saying that you would change your mind about your overall point of view, but I do think you would realize that a lot of the "conspiracy" stuff really doesn't make sense when you think about it logically.

[Prokopis]

-2 US pilots were captured by Iraqui forces. The two captives were broadcasted by IRaq's national TV and A-J. This time, they weren't asked to say anything on camera and they were looking unharmed and definitely more calm.
-US is missing 2 Apache helichoppers suspected to have been lost due to severe weather conditions or downed by iraqi forces.
-An allied patriot missile array was bombed by an allied plane, as that was deemed the only solution to the fact that the array was targeting (locked on ?) the plane perhaps by mistake, something the pilot wasn't all too comfortable with.
-A small and unmanned surveillance plane was downed (shot?) in central Iraq. Iraqui citizens were shown by various channels celebrating the "victory". Among them a lil kid that took its slipper out and started hitting the 3 meter long plane with it :p.
-Severe sandstorms have reportedly brought most mechanized coalition divisions to a stop, turning noon daylight to a brown mess and reducing visibility down to a very few meters. Most other war activites have also been either stopped, or crippled for those hours. Most people in Baghdad aren't even going out of their houses and neither are the reporters from their hotels.

Also about this:
"Soldiers in Baghdad on tops of schools and hospitals firing at U.S. and British troops, knowing that the allied forces do not want to fire back on these locations"

Given that reports say no coalition forces have approached the red line (25Kms from Baghdad), I don't think that it's true. There have not been any skirmishes anywhere close to the iraqi capital yet. Unless this concerned artillery positions, but in that case I don't see how they could fire that far since they can be carried on top of buildings (which would suggest they are small in size).

PS: Basra was the first (and only I think) place where iraqis rebelled against Saddam back in 91 and they got absolutely no american support, leading in their massacre by the iraqi army. Let's hope this time it'll be different. Also their reason is because they are of a different faction if I've understood it correctly (shiites vs dunno what).

[PYMPTYPE]

edit: i wrote this before seeing that ^^^^

maybe i just gave al jazerra too much credit but they are usually considered reliable. upon further thinking about it, the iraqis do get al jazerra and i'm sure al jazerra was airing it too (about the surrender). also i'm sure there are one or two people with an illegal satalite as well. but who cares, i'll shut up now. (sorry for trying to bring a little balance to the thread, won't happen again captain)

what i meant by more biased is you didn't even pick a story you just picked about a bunch of facts you could find that said iraqis are dishonorable, i at least told you what the whole news story said plus that i wasnt sure about it being true and also that there is nothing dishonorable or defaming about using psych warfare anyway.

[Neverside]

Originally posted by Apocalypse Void
I dont think pymp should be banned for his opinion :\

Neither do I

[Issvar]

/me wonders if detecting and removing bias from articles is taught at US schools.

[DuFFMaN]

Originally posted by PYMPTYPE
whatever the case i still think he is alive, if he is dead and iraq is still fighting like this that says a little something about them "being liberated"

or maybe they dont know he is dead (IF he is). I think it is highly likely that if Saddam is killed they will not admit it, especially to his troops. Because that lower morale and pretty much fuck them :s

[phatchris]

Originally posted by Prokopis
-2 US pilots were captured by Iraqui forces. The two captives were broadcasted by IRaq's national TV and A-J. This time, they weren't asked to say anything on camera and they were looking unharmed and definitely more calm.
-US is missing 2 Apache helichoppers suspected to have been lost due to severe weather conditions or downed by iraqi forces.
-An allied patriot missile array was bombed by an allied plane, as that was deemed the only solution to the fact that the array was targeting (locked on ?) the plane perhaps by mistake, something the pilot wasn't all too comfortable with.
-A small and unmanned surveillance plane was downed (shot?) in central Iraq. Iraqui citizens were shown by various channels celebrating the "victory". Among them a lil kid that took its slipper out and started hitting the 3 meter long plane with it :p.
-Severe sandstorms have reportedly brought most mechanized coalition divisions to a stop, turning noon daylight to a brown mess and reducing visibility down to a very few meters. Most other war activites have also been either stopped, or crippled for those hours. Most people in Baghdad aren't even going out of their houses and neither are the reporters from their hotels.

Also about this:
"Soldiers in Baghdad on tops of schools and hospitals firing at U.S. and British troops, knowing that the allied forces do not want to fire back on these locations"

Given that reports say no coalition forces have approached the red line (25Kms from Baghdad), I don't think that it's true. There have not been any skirmishes anywhere close to the iraqi capital yet. Unless this concerned artillery positions, but in that case I don't see how they could fire that far since they can be carried on top of buildings (which would suggest they are small in size).

PS: Basra was the first (and only I think) place where iraqis rebelled against Saddam back in 91 and they got absolutely no american support, leading in their massacre by the iraqi army. Let's hope this time it'll be different. Also their reason is because they are of a different faction if I've understood it correctly (shiites vs dunno what).

About the patriot being bombed by an allied plane. I know that at least for the RAF aircraft and possibly the US as well that when it is targeted by radar and it has it's weapon system activated it will automatically drop a bomb on whatever targets it. This is an automated response so the pilot has cannot be blamed if this happens.

[Prokopis]

Thx Chris, I didn't know that :o.

[miamijc]

Well, it is confirmed that Iraqi soldiers were firing from a hospital in Basra. Allied forces let the doctors and nurses leave the hospital, then stormed the building.

Is that biased enough for you Iss? :p

P.S. It was the BBC that reported the news items I originally posted, almost word for word. What does that have to do with American schools? And if you will notice, the point of this thread was asking others, from other countries, if they were getting the same news. Thanks for popping in with your anti-American sentiment though. Well done.

[miamijc]

Originally posted by PYMPTYPE
what i meant by more biased is you didn't even pick a story you just picked about a bunch of facts you could find that said iraqis are dishonorable

I didn't "pick" anything. Those bullets were listed almost word for word as reported by the BBC. Since I am not in Iraq, and I don't know what is really happening (unlike you, who seems to be able to tell the "truth" from 10,000 miles away), I was just trying to determine if anyone other than the British were reporting these incidents. All you do is bitch about how "blinded" we are by the media, then when I try to get some verification from another news source you bitch about that too. So I guess we should only follow news reported by the Arabs?

And where did I mention that Iraqis are "dishonorable"? If you find their actions dishonorable, that's your business. Don't make it out as the people reporting the actions are the dishonorable ones.

[GoAtankGo]

i dont want to real all the shit you guys just wrote.

[Issvar]

Miamijc, it's not just you, and I don't care where you get your info from, I'm just wondering if you have been taught to remove bias from articles in literacy education at school.

Btw, BBC isn't neutral either, although they usually seem better than US press IMHO.

[miamijc]

Well, since I was a Finance major, and have a masters degree in Finance, I didn't take many classes in "Removing bias from articles in literacy". I imagine they teach those things to journalism majors.

And seriously, you are throwing the term "bias" around too much. There was no bias here. I was just asking others, in other countries, if they can confirm the reports of the above listed events. Are the events controversial? Absolutely. If they weren't controversial, they wouldn't need confirmation from an outside source. No one needs confirmation that there is fighting, or that allied troops are bombing Baghdad. Why is that so dificult to understand?

Have you ever been to America Issvar?

[GoAtankGo]

We get some foreign news stations here BBC and Cnn
something like cnbc or w/e it was, they show pretty much the same.
Only Cnn didnt show the 5 pows on TV and they did on dutch Tv stations
( i think )

[PYMPTYPE]

i am taking a class on media globalization right now. in netherlands i hear you guys can even watch iraqitv over the internet. you can get al-jazeera here but not many people have it.

personally i think the least bias US news sources are (ironicly) the government owned ones. NPR radio is very fair and never reports anything as if it were absolutely true but always gives the sources. CSPAN for TV is very fair and also they have lots of intelligent stuff on there. the government owned media in USA gives the population more access. which means they are more easily allowed to voice their opinions.

[GoAtankGo]

Kay can probably get all channels if he wants to.... im restricted to what most people have. all dutch channels and some foreign, german english french spanish American turkish. we dont get al jazeera but they show alot of stuff on dutch channels that were previously shown on al jazeera

[PYMPTYPE]

if you live in the netherlands (or have a proxy/gateway there ;) ) you can watch iraq TV over the internet. somewhere on this site: http://www.dsltv.nl/ . users from other countries are blocked. i think it would be interesting to be able to watch what the iraqis see.

i found this page http://dearraed.blogspot.com/ where it is some iraqi guy living in baghdad who keeps an internet journal that is read by tens of thousands of people. he tells it from a baghdad residents point of view, also mentions that they do get BBC news on their television.

[GoAtankGo]

http://livestream.xs4all.nl/dsltv.asp?channel=03&x=.ram
so that doesnt work for you ? ( in real player )

[BlkPagan]

Ok, let me answer in this order.

It's not your opinion pymp, it's you belittling people. Don't make me pull examples, you know what I'm talking about. Do I threaten Kay or Prokopis? I don't cause when they debate something, they state the issue, and not some stupid conspeircy theory site.

2nd, in the beginning I watched some propganda, but now I tend to ignore the protests/celebration reports. I think those are provide for the heartbleeding liberals. I tend to worry more about our troops rather than their citizens.

3rd, Please don't tell me you think it's fair that Iraqi troops are moving all their equipment to heavily populated areas so they won't get bombed as unmoral(confirmed). Or how about lining up buses of citizens when they moved some of their artilery (unconfirmed). Or maybe it's the dressing up as US soldiers and shooting troops surrendering?(confirmed) Or threatening to shoot a soldiers family if they desert (unconfirmed). Or how about dressing as citizens, cheering the US or getting close to them to think they are their friends, then shooting them. (confirmed).

There's a thing called the Geneva convension, last I heard Iraq violated 52 rules of it.

[tottie19]

i have sattelite now so i can see iraq tv but its kinda boring because i dont understand the language and they are playing the whole day nationalist songs or propaganda news.

[PYMPTYPE]

oh i thought they translated it.

personally i don't see how anything could be confirmed. one side says something then the other side says something else. for example: some misstle hit civilians in some iraqi marketplace and US and Iraq are blaming it on eachother. there is really no way to confirm who it was without doing some kind of non-partisan scientific investigation.

yes pagan i do know what you mean, i will try to tone down the "belittling" but miami is saying stuff like that to me as well, even when i don't say anything to him. (don't make me find examples :P )

anyways i'm still not going to post anything political for a week because i am sick of arguing.

and BTW the lastest reports i am hearing (from US sources) are saying that infact that iraqi army division of 8000 never did surrender. al-jazeera was right.... what i am hearing is that some people from that division did surrender but it was not the commander rather somebody posing as the commander to get better treatment, not even close to 8,000 soldiers though. of course this cannot be confirmed either but both sides are now saying it.

also i have not posted any conspiracy sites for a long long time. i know how you guys don't trust anything that is not owned by gigantic corporations.

[BlkPagan]

^ thanks, same goes for miami. Lets just love each other ffs!

And ya, those troops surrending was fake, but they say 2k did surrender tho.

I guess many people don't realize, 2000 out of 400,000 troops don't mean shit.

[Prokopis]

Originally posted by BlkPagan
[...]Please don't tell me you think it's fair that Iraqi troops are moving all their equipment to heavily populated areas so they won't get bombed as unmoral(confirmed). Or how about lining up buses of citizens when they moved some of their artilery (unconfirmed). Or maybe it's the dressing up as US soldiers and shooting troops surrendering?(confirmed) Or threatening to shoot a soldiers family if they desert (unconfirmed). Or how about dressing as citizens, cheering the US or getting close to them to think they are their friends, then shooting them. (confirmed).[...]

OMFG it's not "fair"!

Please...

PS: I could point out a few more things about this "war" that are not fair if you're interested.

[miamijc]

Their is a difference between "fair" and what is considered "rules of war". If the U.S. went in and just dropped bombs all over Iraq, killing millions of civilians, that would be morally wrong, and they would be charged as war criminals. Some civilians have died, but that is clearly not the intent of what they are trying to do.

Saddam moving his military into civilian areas, including using hospitals and schools to house his soldiers, then reporting pictures of civilians being injured or killed is simply ridiculous.

Here is an interesting article on Arab tv:

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=118792

The article tells both sides of the story (American and Arab news), but has some interesting points.

- "We hope to succeed in presenting the most accurate and objective picture," Maher Abdullah, a reporter with al-Jazeera, said Sunday while reporting from Baghdad. "We are keen on objectivity, but not necessarily neutrality."

- A group of university professors and the Kurdistan Journalists Union charged in a statement read on Kurdish television that Arab satellite stations were biased in favor of the Iraqi regime and "deliberately obscure and distort facts."

- Hemoud al-Hemoud, a retired Jordanian government employee, complained about exaggeration by the Arab stations, but said their coverage appears to have had an effect on their Western counterparts. "I find CNN more accurate than it was in the 1991 Gulf War on Iraq," said the 60-year-old al-Hemoud.

************************

And Pymp, I'm not sure how you can say I do the same things that you do, certainly not in the past few months. The only thing I can remember saying to you was "go back to selling drugs", which by your own admission, you do sell drugs. And I was using that to illustrate the point that while you are more concerned with yourself, and "getting paid" regardless of who it hurts, there are people genuinely interested in helping others (i.e. why we have invaded Iraq).

[Prokopis]

Originally posted by miamijc
Their is a difference between "fair" and what is considered "rules of war".[...]

This is not war; it's an invasion.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]If the U.S. went in and just dropped bombs all over Iraq, killing millions of civilians, that would be morally wrong, and they would be charged as war criminals.[...]

They have, it is and they have been already. I've seen their work from local stations with reporters of their own there and from SKY News, CNN, Fox, A-J and Iraq-TV and so have most europeans (to various extents).

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Some civilians have died, but that is clearly not the intent of what they are trying to do.[...]

"Some" almost sounds like an insult to my intelligence. In fact, they are well over a thousand already. Talk about some fucked up preemptive non-aggression...

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Saddam moving his military into civilian areas, including using hospitals and schools to house his soldiers, then reporting pictures of civilians being injured or killed is simply ridiculous.[...]

I trust you've seen this somewhere to be reporting it here, right?

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]there are people genuinely interested in helping others (i.e. why we have invaded Iraq).

You don't know why they have invaded Iraq. You only have been told that it's to protect your country (!) and your freedom and security.

I'm beginning to hate freedom and security...

PS: I'd really like to invite you here Jason, so you can see for your self what I'm seeing every day.

[miamijc]

Wow Prok, you really do have some built-up aggression towards the U.S.

Turn on ANY news souce, and you will see reports that Saddam has moved most of his troops to civilian areas of Baghdad. British troops raided a hospital in Basra, killing many Iraqi troops, finding weapons and chemical weapons suits in the hospital. So to answer your question, yes, I have seen it reported several times.

Prok, whether you agree with this war or not, you cannot possibly say that America is not taking reasonable care to not hurt Iraqi civilians. If it was our intention, we could literally level all of Iraq in a matter of minutes, from a safe distance, and not put our troops in harm's way. That is clearly not the intention. It is U.S. and British troops that are supplying food and water to starving Iraqi citizens. There will always be casualties in any conflict (which certainly does not trivialize them). But for you not to be able to recognize the attempt to spare lives is laughable.

And LOL@you saying you have seen them, and so have most Europeans. Are you in Iraq? Or do you see what the Iraqi news shows you? Why is it that people like you are so quick to dismiss anything that comes from the American or British media, but you instantly take at face value what the Iraqi Information Minister allows to be broadcast from Iraq? There have been civilian deaths, which is a terrible thing, but neither you, nor I or anyone so far removed is in a position to say how many, or how they actually died. Please stop trying to do so. And by the way, anything you see on CNN or Fox or A-J or anywhere else is seen here also, probably to a greater extent. We have 24 hour coverage on many major networks, including updates from Arab newstations. Don't buy into the notion that we don't see exactly what you see.

And I also get a kick out of you telling me that "You don't know why they have invaded Iraq. You only have been told that it's to protect your country (!) and your freedom and security". Do you know what the name of this "operation" is? Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not Operation American Freedom. Bush wants to take out Saddam, and liberate the Iraqi people. Again, if you don't believe it, that's ok, but do not presume to tell me what I believe, or what I have been told.

[PYMPTYPE]

i don't think what saddam has done is at all venerable but it is in the least one of the best military strategies (or political) that he had available to him. the US does not always follow the rules either even though they already have such a huge advantage.

[Prokopis]

Originally posted by miamijc
Wow Prok, you really do have some built-up aggression towards the U.S.[...]

No aggression towards the US just as I've said many times before. Just opposing this war, its legality, morality and sanity.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Turn on ANY news souce, and you will see reports that Saddam has moved most of his troops to civilian areas of Baghdad. British troops raided a hospital in Basra, killing many Iraqi troops, finding weapons and chemical weapons suits in the hospital. So to answer your question, yes, I have seen it reported several times.[...]

So in fact you haven't actually seen it on television; you just have heard it being reported, which is my point. Western media don't really care much for images from Iraq and what's going on in there. They just approach the subject tersely and by constantly dehumanizing it. Also being attached to the coalition troops doesn't do much for objectivity I'd suppose.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Prok, whether you agree with this war or not, you cannot possibly say that America is not taking reasonable care to not hurt Iraqi civilians.[...]

Actually they don't give a damn at all. Tell me one thing they have done to make sure what they are hitting aren't civilian targets. Hell, tell me how they even make sure they aren't taking out friendlies out in the fucking desert in the middle of nowhere. If they fire a tomahwk at the town veggie market and kill 50 innocent civilians kids, women and anyone else, you can bet no one will come out showing it to you. It's not "newsworthy". But FYI this has happened and I didn't find about it from iraqui media, but from our own. But I bet you'll tell me the Iraqui Minister of Information had the dragged over there and forced them to shoot the dismembered corpses.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]If it was our intention, we could literally level all of Iraq in a matter of minutes, from a safe distance, and not put our troops in harm's way.[...]

I see. Well I can only imagine what would happen if that actually was your intention... But wait!

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]That is clearly not the intention.[...]

So the other guy who told me that they are bombing the shit out of Baghdad and other major towns in general to kill the people's morale and attempt to trigger an inside rebellion was just full of shit, huh?

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]It is U.S. and British troops that are supplying food and water to starving Iraqi citizens.[...]

Yes, you do deserve credit for deciding to take care of your responsibilities for once.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]There will always be casualties in any conflict (which certainly does not trivialize them). But for you not to be able to recognize the attempt to spare lives is laughable.[...]

I promise to stop laughing once you tell me all about those attempts. No, wait. I'm not laughing at all.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]And LOL@you saying you have seen them, and so have most Europeans. Are you in Iraq? Or do you see what the Iraqi news shows you?[...]

Are you saying I was lying? Also I fail to see how being in Iraq, or not matters here. Like I said, every day I see a good deal of footage from many towns in Iraq shot by greek crews from 4 different greek news networks. FFS they are so professional and fast that Iraq TV has twice borrowed shots from them to show on their channel (I think A-J once too). I hope you won't tell me that we're doing their propaganda for them now. And please stop telling me that I'm being biased in any way here. That's what I've been trying to show you fron the beginning. I have access to most news sources actively involved (monitoring that is)and watch most of them frequently and probably in equal ammounts of time. I had no reason to be with one side or the other before this war and just like I've said a million times, I'd probably be the last person to say that Saddam shouldn't be overthrown.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Why is it that people like you are so quick to dismiss anything that comes from the American or British media, but you instantly take at face value what the Iraqi Information Minister allows to be broadcast from Iraq??[...]

I'm not dismissing anything here, rather pointing out what probably hasn't and isn't (and likely won't) been/being/be shown to you. Also I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do this any more. Please stop labeling me and sticking me in a crowd just so you can "help" people to see what I'm all for or against and so you can answer me with generalized combacks. Please treat me as an individual and reply to my comments and arguments instead of that group's ones. I have done so with you so far and I don't think I deserve this. Thx.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]There have been civilian deaths, which is a terrible thing, but neither you, nor I or anyone so far removed is in a position to say how many, or how they actually died. Please stop trying to do so. [...]

Again I'm telling you that I've seen at least a dozen incidents involving coalition attacks ending in civilian massacres from our news networks. I've seen the dead. I don't know if you have, but for my part I can say that I'm in a position to know of a gross number of casualties per attack and thusly perhaps in total. It's all a matter of whether you choose to believe me. Do you?

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]And by the way, anything you see on CNN or Fox or A-J or anywhere else is seen here also, probably to a greater extent. We have 24 hour coverage on many major networks, including updates from Arab newstations. Don't buy into the notion that we don't see exactly what you see.[...]

I do believe that you are not seeing exactly what I see. That is by nationality impossible. You see, there are no lone US or british news crews going around in cities showing the ammounts of devastation and misery that many bombings cause. Also I'm not sure exactly how popular A-J and Iraq TV are in the US right now, but I'd be willing to bet they aren't all that much. 24 hour coverage from 24 hour coverage may very well differ...

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]And I also get a kick out of you telling me that "You don't know why they have invaded Iraq. You only have been told that it's to protect your country (!) and your freedom and security". Do you know what the name of this "operation" is? Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not Operation American Freedom.[...]

What does that prove? What should that convince me about? Would they ever call it Desert storm 2, or Iraqui invasion? Or how about "Saddam's swan song"?

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Bush wants to take out Saddam, and liberate the Iraqi people.[...]

He had two full years to do that so far if I'm not mistaken. Also I never heard him say anything about it during the previous elections - much less get votes for that.

Originally posted by miamijc
[...]Again, if you don't believe it, that's ok, but do not presume to tell me what I believe, or what I have been told.

I never told you what you believe and I've only told you what I believe to be true about the objectivity of the news coverage of this "war" on the other side of the Atlantic. Remember your country is the one involved here, not mine. That should tell you something about objectivity.

This was tiresome, but I hope I've answered all your comments and maintained a civilized level to this debate.

[miamijc]

Prok, your entire argument is based on assumption and speculation. You have no idea what news we see over here. As I said, I would guarantee there are more US reporters in Iraq than Greek reporters. Some U.S. reporters are actually travelling with the military. I would say that we have FAR more information available to us than you do. Stop assuming that you see things that we don't.

And again, your argument that America is just wildly bombing Baghdad, with no regard to civilians is totally absurd. You said 1,000 people are dead? (Which neither you nor I can confirm). If the U.S. military was attempting to annihilate Baghdad, with all of the weapons at their disposal, do you not think things would be MUCH worse? You didn't address my point that this entire operation could be carried out with air power, completely leveling a city of millions in a matter of hours, at a very safe distance, rather than sending in foot soldiers and placing our own troops at risk.

And to say you are not biased on this issue is hysterical. By your own words, you oppose the war, think it is immoral and illegal, yet you feel you are unbiased? Hmmmm.

[Prokopis]

I agree that wildly bombing Baghdad with no regard to civilians is totally absurd. Personally I'm stunned with what I've seen during the last week.

About placing your own troops at risk: at some point you'll have to stop bombing and do a more hands on appreach in your effort to find and take out Saddam, his party members, his military and his strong supporters. Also not all iraqui forces can be identified, targeted or dealt with without the aid of ground troops. I bet if they could, you'd be doing regular bombings for another 2 weeks. Other than that, it's mostly the planes doing the damage, especially during the last 3 days. Ground forces haven't advanced much since last Friday. However I fail to see how that's relevant. Are you telling me you care just because you haven't completely leveled Baghdad? How do you make sure you aren't hitting them with every strike? What are those attempts to protect their freedom and security you were talking about?

Finally, only people that are biased can freely come to the conclusion that this war is wrong? If that is so, is everyone but the coalition in this world biased?

[miamijc]

Prok, if allied forces wanted to take out the Iraqi military, with no regard to civilian life, there would be no Baghdad left. It would be wiped off the face of the earth. Millions of civilians, not 1,000 (again, your number) would be dead. This is clearly not happening.

Why isn't it happening? Because the U.S. and Britain are trying to remove Saddam without killing millions of people. If they wanted to take over the country, or steal the oil, or whatever other reasons you might give, they would simply kill everyone they encounter and be done with this conflict. That is clearly not happening. If you were truly unbiased you would see that.

[PYMPTYPE]

there ya go prok hold down the fort while i am on leave lol. just one thing, miami do you really think the US could just flaten baghdad and get away with it? i agree the US is trying hard to avoid killing civilians.

civilian (not military) body count - www.iraqbodycount.org

[Forsythe]

So the other guy who told me that they are bombing the shit out of Baghdad and other major towns in general to kill the people's morale and attempt to trigger an inside rebellion was just full of shit, huh?


No one bombs the shit out of a city and expects its villagers to capitulate and trigger a rebellion. If history has shown us anything, bombing a city only solidifies the people's resistance.


"Some" almost sounds like an insult to my intelligence. In fact, they are well over a thousand already. Talk about some fucked up preemptive non-aggression...

1000?! Even the iraqi media has said something like 300-500 have died. Where did you get 1000?


It's quite obvious saddam needs to be taken out because of the atrocities committed to his own people, his invasion and attack of his neighboring countries, and the use of chemical weapons, and keeping weapons inspectors out starting 1998. I don't consider letting the inspectors back in after 4 years a change of heart. Mainly being able to hide those weapons during that time and the stupidly low amount of UN inspectors who came this time around (200 this year compared to 3000 before) who will never find any weapons whether or not they are there. The US got lucky finding the plans and eventually WMD back in 1998. I don't see a reason for the need to be lucky again before we finally act. Clinton's lack of resolve in taking out saddam should not undermine the efforts of Bush to oust saddam.

But this goes beyond the UN resolution. Goes beyond the civilian casualties that people are so quick to blame the US strikes. It goes into freeing the iraqi people to decide for themselves what kind of government they want and how to run their country. Saddam is a blatant dictator with no cares about who dies and suffers with his people, as long as he remains in power.

If you cannot see this, there is nothing else to discuss. We simply have differing opinions and there is no hope for changing either side's minds.

[miamijc]

:sonny:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893527.asp

Very interesting article about the unfortunate killing of 10 or so Iraqis who would not stop their van at a check point. In the article, the Iraqi embassador to Russia says that 589 civilians have been killed. He must not be as informed as Prok, who knows that 1,000 have been killed. Prok, maybe you should fill the Iraqis in :classic:

Pymp, who would stop America from leveling Baghdad? France? Give me a break. You guys crack me up. There is no evidence whatsoever that America wants to level Baghdad, when in fact the militiary planners have repeatedly described the difficulties in trying to fight Saddam's men because they are hold up in civilian areas.

Look, in 11 days of fighting, with the most technologically advanced weapons on earth, 600 people have died, in a country with roughly 23.8 million people. Read that again. 600 out of 23.8 million. If you cannot see that attempts are being made to minimize casualties, you simply refuse to look at the facts.

[BlkPagan]

yea that sucked. I really feel bad about those women and kids. However, I look at it like this. They could not see into the van, gave plenty of time to stop with warning shots, and considering all the attacks on soldiers with car bombs and trucks, I would have done the same thing. Now, if they just wildly shot into the vechile, I would be pissed beyond all hell.

There are 2 sides of this war, pro american and anti american. Most countries media will be anti-american because a lot of people are in each country. While americans don't see the bad side of the war, they only hear about the over emotional stories of the Coalition side. I'm not pro war, but im still pro for removing Saddam and having him lying to the UN.

I always wondered why people still support the iraqi side when he fired 2/3 scuds at kuwait and i think he had another type of missle that was suppose to be illegal. It's not like it's a huge deal, but it was proving he was lying.

[PYMPTYPE]

i kinda understand about the 7 civilians part but it seems kinda strange to me that they killed all 7 of them before realizing they were women and children, they probably just shoot up the van.

Pymp, who would stop America from leveling Baghdad? France? Give me a break. You guys crack me up.

ok this sentence shows a lot about your lack of understanding about international diplomacy. america could not just destroy everything in baghdad and not suffer any concequences for it. 1st thing it would likely insight a full islamic jihad, in which case, we would be in some serious trouble.

[miamijc]

No Pymp, that remark was a sarcastic response to your ridiculous accusation that the only reason American forces are not levelling Baghdad is because "they couldn't get away with it", implying that is what they would do if they could.

[PYMPTYPE]

i am just pointing out that just because they don't flatten baghdad does not mean they don't want to. you have used this kind of logic before. i do not intend to "imply" anything, i'm just trying to show your argument is invalid. gg

[miamijc]

My "argument" is that 600 people out of almost 24 million have died. As usual, you don't address the facts. 600 people have died, and the military has come out over and over and over and over and stressed the importance of taking as few civilian lives as possible, which the numbers support, yet you somehow twist that into "they would flatten Baghdad if they could get away with it." The facts support that they are trying not to kill civilians, but as usual, you use your personal beliefs (i.e. that the American military is evil and wants to kill others) to COMPLETELY disregard the facts, and somehow draw a totally illogical conclusion.

God help you if your mind really works that way.

[PYMPTYPE]

dude wtf is your problem?

i didn't say any of the stuff you accused me of. i agreed that america was trying not to kill civilians. all i am trying to say is that the reasoning you gave for america not flatening baghdad is invalid. ffs quit acting like a kid and making stuff up.

[miamijc]

Originally posted by PYMPTYPE
i am just pointing out that just because they don't flatten baghdad does not mean they don't want to.

Yeah, I don't know where I got the idea that you said that from :\

That's like me saying "Pymp wants to kill all the blacks in Atlanta. The only reason he doesn't is because he would get in trouble". Just because you don't kill them, doesn't mean you don't want to, right Pymp?

Do you see how statements like that, with absolutely ZERO evidence behind them (or actually the bulk of the evidence to the contrary), are inflamatory, and do have implications behind them?

[PYMPTYPE]

WTF are you talking about. i dont think you understand what i am saying. i am not saying they want to flatten baghdad. ALL I AM SAYING IS JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T, DOES NOT NECESSARILLY MEAN THEY DONT WANT TO, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO CONSIDER.

i am just trying to get you to stop using the invalid bullshit argument that just because they didn't do something (which would not have even been conceivable) that it means they didn't want to; they could be anybody. i will put it in terms you can understand: "just because saddam hussein didn't kill all the kurds does not mean he didn't want to," does that make sense now? forget about the rest of the conversation it is just the logic part i am talking about. i dont want to post about this again FFS i agree with most of what you said in this thread, cut me some slack here.

[miamijc]

Pymp, your logic never ceases to amaze me. You can use that argument for ANYTHING, that doesn't make it valid, or logical at all.

- Pymp wants to fuck sheep, the only reason he doesn't is because he would get arrested.

Using your words "ALL I AM SAYING IS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T, DOES NOT NECESSARILLY MEAN YOU DONT WANT TO, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO CONSIDER."

My point is, you could accuse anyone of anything using that "logic". It is just inflamatory, and is not reasonable thinking.

Your Saddam example is wrong, because he DID kill many of the Kurds. He didn't take steps to NOT kill them. So a reasonable person would assume that Saddam did in fact want to kill the Kurds. However, the soldiers are taking steps to minimize civilian casualties, so a reasonable person would assume that their intention is to minimize casualties.

But who ever said we are reasonable people? :silly:

[PYMPTYPE]

you are either missing the entire point or you are trying to be slick.

don't try to switch your logic over to me lmfao. once again, i never used the argument you accused me off "that the us would have flattened baghdad if not for the internation reprecusions" i never said that. you were the one using the faulty logic and all i am trying to do is point it out. mathmatically you used the argument that:

A can do B.
A does not do B.
therefore A does not want to do B.

this argument is invalid no matter what A or B is. there is no way that the fact A didn't do B proves he did not want to. that is all i am saying. the argument is invalid even if the conclusion (i.e. that the US does not want to flatten baghdad) is true. i agree with your conclusion, i am just saying you failed to prove it in your argument with prok.

you used this argument once before as well: "if the US wanted to control iraq it would have done it after the first gulf war." that statement is only true assuming that there was no pressure on them to do otherwise.

[miamijc]

Pymp, there is absolutely zero evidence that America wants to flatten Baghdad. There is evidence to the contrary, that they are trying to minimize casualties. You telling me to "prove" that America doesn't want to flatten Baghdad is like me telling you to "prove" that you don't want to fuck sheep.

So can you prove that you don't want to fuck sheep? Of course you can't. But reasonable people can use your actions to form a conclusion that you do not want to. Telling someone to "prove" someone's intentions is just foolish, and quite frankly the basis for all of the conspiracy theories floating around. Prove Bush isn't satan. Prove Israel isn't trying to steal everyone's land. Prove America isn't trying to steal oil.

These things will be proven as soon as you prove that you don't want to fuck sheep.

[KilleTiff]

i dont follow much news so half of the stuff i say is probably shit, so some1 confirm what i say plz :)
ne ways i read something about geneva convention n i heard that the americans broke some of its regulations on the afghans in cuba,
and in my opinion there is not one source which is fully reliable imo all the news channel contain atleast a bit of properganda (prolly spelt wrong)
annnnd y does 'america n britain' have to disarm saddam what gives them the right to do it and so what if sadam has weapons of mass destruction, so do lots of diff other countries including us and britain n imo that makes em hypocrites, cos sadam aint nuked no1 to my knowledge, and hes done fuck all recently where as america is actually the only country whos actually nuked a place.

[PYMPTYPE]

i did not try to prove anything. i agree with what you are saying. you are the person who tried to use an invalid argument to support your unprovable opinion, that is all i am saying! please quit trying to turn it around on me.

the conspiracy thing you said is nonsense. i will make judgements on whether or not to believe in a conspiracy based on the evidence i have available to me and logic, not based on your failure to prove that the USA doesn't want to steal oil. nobody has ever been asked to prove this. you cannot prove a negative hardly ever anyway.

[miamijc]

LOL. Tiff gets internet back and jumps right in.

Tiff, Saddam invaded Kuwait, and has been under U.N. sanctions ever since. They are basically special rules that apply to him, not other countries. Most countries are allowed to have all types of weapons.

As far as why U.S., Britain, Australia, etc. are doing this. Well, if you mean why are their troops doing it, even if the U.N. passed a resolution authorizing this action, it would still be the U.S. and Britain's troops doing the majority of the fighting. Most other countries rarely supply troops for any type of U.N. mission (at least in numbers that are relevant). If you mean why are these countries doing this without full backing of the U.N., that is a whole different story. The U.S. and Britain feel that Saddam poses a threat to his own people, to the region, and inderectly through connections to terrorist groups, to other countries throughout the world (i.e. mainly America and Britain). Ever since Sept. 11th, the U.S. has been on a mission to eliminate terrorism. The Bush administration feels there is a link between Saddam and terrorist groups. Other countries are not convinced there is a link. Of course, if the terrorists had blown up the Eiffel tower, and killed 3,000 people in France, or Germany or where ever, instead of the WTC, they might have a little different perspective.

Anyway, that is pretty much why this is all happening. Pymp will tell you this is happening so that America can help its economy, which I do not believe at all, as this war is costing America $100 billion already, not to mention any costs associated with increased terrorist attacks as a result of the war with Iraq.

That's all I can think of for now.

[miamijc]

Originally posted by PYMPTYPE
i did not try to prove anything. i agree with what you are saying. you are the person who tried to use an invalid argument to support your unprovable opinion, that is all i am saying! please quit trying to turn it around on me.


Seriously, you can twist the truth like no one I have ever met.

This issue didn't even involve you. Prok said that America was wildly bombing Iraq with no regard for civilians. I said that wasn't true, and presented the fact that there have been 600 civilian casualties in a country with almost 24 million people in it. This clearly shows that allied forces are trying to minimize civilian casualties. Besides the casualty figures, the military leaders have stated over and over that they are taking great care to minimize civilian deaths, including offering medical help, bringing tons of food and water into the country, etc. I used the FACTS, to make a reasonable assesment of the allied forces' intentions to minimize civilian deaths. Can I read their minds? No. But reasonable people use the facts available to draw reasonable conclusions.

You somehow twist that into an "invalid argument to support an unprovable" opinion. Classic.

[PYMPTYPE]

Anyway, that is pretty much why this is all happening. Pymp will tell you this is happening so that America can help its economy, which I do not believe at all, as this war is costing America $100 billion already, not to mention any costs associated with increased terrorist attacks as a result of the war with Iraq.
no pymp will tell you this is happening for a number of reasons, including to distract from our hurting economy, put money in a few guys pockets, preserve the dollar for oil trade, and possibly giving us some economic benefits. other political and tacticle reasons as well. don't get me wrong by saying that i think bush is trying to help america, i think he is trying to help himself, his friends, and the republican party.

You somehow twist that into an "invalid argument to support an unprovable" opinion. Classic.
oh yeah i'm good aren't i ;) but seriously you knew what i was trying to say but you did some twisting and turning there yourself anyway :P

i just dont want to hear the "since A didn't do B it MUST be because A didn't want to do B" argument