It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GT100FV
I don't hear about mass civilian casualties with any sort of regularity when US/Allied forces are concerned. I'd say that the news sources you've been listening to have an agenda(every bit as much as you'd say FOX does).
An Iraqi security official gave a different version, saying four civilians were killed in a firefight late Sunday as a result of clashes between Mutlaq's guards and those of Shiite lawmaker Salama Al Khafaji.
He said the two groups clashed in the Al Jamel neighborhood of western Baghdad, after which US troops, including military helicopters, arrived to quell the fight.
Four members of a family were killed and two of Khafaji's guards wounded, he added.
Originally posted by jrod
This claim against Bush is outrageuos.
Halliburton has done a lot of wrong to our own people. Check out this clip of what goes wrong over there. Leave Bush out of this, down with Halliburton!
www.whoisthemonkey.com... rn
Originally posted by marg6043
Who is behind all these major corporate groups?
The Carlyle group, and who is the face of the Carlyle group?
Major political figures including Bush father.
You know when it was claims that the Republican party favors corporations, it was not a joke you know.
Bush appointee for secretary of the defense is also another Carlyle group friend of the family.
Somebody has to oversee the investments in Iraq.
www.hereinreality.com...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This post isn't directed solely at GT100FV, I'm just using his quote as reference.
For the vast majority of news, I don't "listen" to news sources. As df1 said, nearly everything we listen to (TV and radio) here in the states is totally biased. Some (like FOX) are just more biased than others.
There are a few exceptions. Link TV is pretty good. If you have cable, check it out now and then.
Here's a story from the Middle East Times. Notice how the US reports 6 'terrorists' were killed, but an Iraqi security officer tells a different story...
An Iraqi security official gave a different version, saying four civilians were killed in a firefight late Sunday as a result of clashes between Mutlaq's guards and those of Shiite lawmaker Salama Al Khafaji.
He said the two groups clashed in the Al Jamel neighborhood of western Baghdad, after which US troops, including military helicopters, arrived to quell the fight.
Four members of a family were killed and two of Khafaji's guards wounded, he added.
If you're listening to US news sources, you're getting an extremely slanted, twisted version of events. Especially if you're listening to FOX 'news'.
A- FOX is not more biased than every other US media source. It just doesn't have a liberal bias(it's the only balance to the overwhelming liberal slant in the US media). Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's any more biased than a source with a different agenda. CBS let Dan Rather put out completely fabricated BS. CNN regularly puts out BS, etc....
B- Does it not stand to reason that an Arab source might have an agenda in news reporting as well? Of course everybody that's killed was just minding their own business, when the brutal US bogeyman came in and shot them for no reason whatsoever. When those sources have been caught staging events, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
C- I would take the news from anybody with antiwar in the name of their site, with a grain of salt too. Of course they have an agenda, and slant everything to try put their position in the best light.
Everybody has an agenda, that's why multiple corroborating sources help sort out what is BS, and what isn't. If I were to see a story reported by multiple, independent sources(and no not Al Jazeera), that had irrefutable evidence, then it would lend some credibility. When a story is an obvious Anti US piece, I'm going to be very dubious as to its veracity.
Originally posted by df1
Originally posted by GT100FV
but I don't hear about mass civilian casualties with any sort of regularity when US/Allied forces are concerned. I'd say that the news sources you've been listening to have an agenda(every bit as much as you'd say FOX does).
I suggest that you start consulting some non-american news sources. All of the american media is complicit with the government to prevent the public from seeing atrocities being committed by the US in the ME. Most democrats are neck deep in the ME pit of manure along with most republicans. Both serve the same master, the corporate oil interests, at the expense of the american people
You don't want to hear about mass civilian casualties, because taking your head out of the sand would force you to confront the ugly truth that our government is a bunch of war criminals.
.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do want to be clear that I realize that the poll posted isn't a completely accurate assessment of the way that ALL Iraqis feel. HOWEVER, since Baghdad is where most of the mess is, and it's the most populous city in Iraq, I think it's fair to say that 90% if not all of them are worse off under Bush than under Saddam. And that means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to my formidable opponents here.
OF course if you ask the people we're not bombing if their life is worse under Bush, they're going to so no. It's not so bad. We're not bombing and killing them...
It's a BIG DEAL that Baghdad's 6-7 million people want us to go away. It says something to me. Does it mean ANYTHING to you guys? Or would you just rather argue abut the poll and keep the attention off of what the poll means?
Back to the subject of this thread...
What's so scary about Bush being tried? If you're all right, he'll be found innocent. But with so many Americans agreeing that he should be tried, why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't our legal system apply to him, too?
What are you afraid of?
Originally posted by GT100FV
Even far left partisans Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and their ilk don't believe there's even a strong enough case for impeachment much less war crime charges, and they hate Bush.
Originally posted by LovingSoul
The first thing my 12 year old said was "But that's not fair! What about Bush?". Indeed! When will we see him before the Court?
Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
The sad part of this thread is I don't think any of you Bush-haters are joking. I appreciate FlyersFan clearing you guys up, and he/she has received a WATS from me.
This site is anti-american!
Originally posted by GT100FV
You seem to be so blinded by your hatred of Bush...
Originally posted by GT100FV
Does it not stand to reason that an Arab source might have an agenda in news reporting as well?
I would take the news from anybody with antiwar in the name of their site, with a grain of salt too.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Most of this ignorance comes from euros who have no idea what they are talking about. Sadly, most of the "knowledge" about the US that they receive comes from hollywood.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Most of this ignorance comes from euros who have no idea what they are talking about. Sadly, most of the "knowledge" about the US that they receive comes from hollywood. Of course, movies like farenheit 9/11 dont help things either.
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I think you are underestimating non-Americans.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by GT100FV
Does it not stand to reason that an Arab source might have an agenda in news reporting as well?
Yes, it does stand to reason. I read ALL sides and then decide. Do you? Or does FOX tell you everything you need (and want) to hear?
Originally posted by intrepid
Why don't we let this topic continue without the political bickering.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
................
HOWEVER, since Baghdad is where most of the mess is, and it's the most populous city in Iraq, I think it's fair to say that 90% if not all of them are worse off under Bush than under Saddam. And that means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to my formidable opponents here.
Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam's torture chambers
By Jack Kelley, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes.
"This is the place where Saddam made people disappear," said an Iraqi soldier named Iyad Hussein, 37, describing Iraq's Military Intelligence Directorate in the northwestern suburb of Kadimiya. "It is a chamber of death."
The secrets of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror are beginning to emerge. Iraqi civilians who had longed feared speaking out about the alleged atrocities for fear of government retribution are revealing in detail what the Iraqi dictator and his regime inflicted on some of the country's 26 million people.
They paint a picture of arrests, killings and torture that have led human rights groups to condemn the Iraqi leader in the strongest terms. The groups have charged that tens of thousands of Iraqis, from Kurds in the north to Shiites in the south, were tortured and killed after Saddam seized power in 1979.
Most were arrested on charges ranging from criticizing the Iraqi leader to cooperating with the United States.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OF course if you ask the people we're not bombing if their life is worse under Bush, they're going to so no. It's not so bad. We're not bombing and killing them...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's so scary about Bush being tried? If you're all right, he'll be found innocent. But with so many Americans agreeing that he should be tried, why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't our legal system apply to him, too?
What are you afraid of?