spews her Creme Brulee coffee all over her monitor
S/he said wot??:eek:
You’ll have to be more specific. What exactly are you spewing coffee about?
In case it’s not perfectly clear already, the Al-Jazeera report covers the same ground as the other news sources.
It’s just reporting what the fuck is happening. You can’t expect them to say anything about the triumphant US liberators freeing Iraq from the shackles of Saddams oppression. You should also note that they are shouting “Yankee go home” or any shit like that either. The only difference is that they don’t have to cater to the delicate sensibilities of the U.S. or U.K. audiences that like to believe that innocent people aren’t being slaughtered on their behalf by lying, self-serving jackasses.
snicker giggle Best opener I’ve heard for a while – have you thought about stand-up?
Gee… what’s all this about US’ers and Muslame’ers? I’m here mostly to work a bit on my English (not my US’ish!); this isn’t very helpful. Will I have to change my Location to: Eurotrasher? On the other hand, if someone can’t see the inherent bias in words like “bloodbath” – I guess I’m not the only one in here who could do with a bit language work.
RedfuryI always thought you picked up your name having a particular nasty combination of PMS and MS. What kind of pansy football team would call themselves Redfury anyway?! Looking forward to seeing your pathetic arses whipped red in the upcoming cup. I think you should change to PinkAngst.
Stepping lightly over the more ahmm. non-PC formulations of the OP, there’s nothing wrong in celebrating a bit of good war fortune. Congratulation America! The world’s a better place with those damn insurgents or what-the-fuck-ever pushing daisies. There can of course be valid opposition to the American occupation, but those damn Saddam left-overs have absolutely no future to offer the Iraqi population. I guess they choose the wrong convoy, huh? Well since they obviously are no match for real soldiers I guess it’s back to back-stabbing and soft targets for them.
- Rune (EU’er)
From the conservative Sydney Morning Herald:
From the (UK) Mirror:
“Bloodbath” is a term that applies to killings. You’ll note that the two cites above use it to describe killings of Iraqis and Americans. You do need some language work, you ignorant jerkoff.
In the absence of a perfectly accurate and unbiased media outlet, one way to arrive at some approximation of the truth is to get the news from two outlets with opposite slants, and try and combine the two … this is why I used to read the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph.
It would be a mistake to think that al-Jazeera is not somewhat slanted in its presentation towards its primary (non-American Muslim) audience. But it would be a much bigger mistake to regard it simply as a propaganda arm of the Evil Fanatic Anti-American Terrorist Conspiracy. Its reporting of basic facts seems to be, on the whole, pretty good … and the slant it takes in doing that reporting could tell American readers a whole lot about what the “Islamic world’s” mindset actually is.
Even if you regard said “Islamic world” as the enemy, it is surely good strategy to know how that enemy’s thinking … The danger, of course, to the really rabid war supporters is that, if they learn how their enemy thinks, they may - horror of horrors! - come to see that enemy as real live human beings, who may even have some valid viewpoints … Much easier and safer not to think about such things, and to fall back on simple stereotypes about “fanatics” who “hate us for our freedoms”.
Ahh… Demo my lad you amaze me with your argumentative powers! Help I’m blinded by your blazing wit! Wow… Wow… Wow!
- Rune
Looks like they had an Appointment in Samarra . . .
Didn’t I see Noam Chompsky write this a few days ago?
applauds
Good call, Eve! I’m ashamed of myself for not grabbing that one…
Not to worry. They’d be a perfect complement to nasty little left-wing oldies like you.
Oh, I’m not worried about it, skunk-boy. Makes my life easier. Rather than accusing people of being Tighty Righty dickheads, I can just wait for them to demonstrate it. You see, as you get older, you learn to conserve your energy. Someday you’ll understand.
Just for some clarification to the story, I listened to the BBC followup story about this on my way into work today, so apologies if I don’t get it 100% accurate, but what I took from the story is below.
The reporter stated that two convoys consisting of Bradley Fighting Vehicles and US tanks, escorting the delivery of newly printed Iraqi currency to the bank in Samarra, came under small arms and grenade attacks. The evidence seems to say that the US forces were taking smaller side-streets on their way to the bank, crushing several passenger vehicles parked at the sides of of the road on their way.
The US forces were attacked by what they have said was several large groups of attackers, led by by Saddam loyalists from his Fedayjin forces, and were soundly defeated by the American soldiers.
Iraqi residents and spokespersons for the hospital in which the wounded were treated claim that a much smaller group than claimed by the US attacked the convoy, and when the US forces opened fire they also began firing indiscriminately in the market area. The long gun battle resulted in the death of all of the attackers, along with several dozen civillians, some of whom joined in the fight against the soldiers when they opened fire.
Among the confirmed dead were at least two muslim religious pilgrims visiting the mosque in the town who were killed when a US mortar squad accidentally trained their fire on the mosque the pilgrims had travelled to visit (Samarra is a religiously significant site), as well as at least six women and children killed in the crossfire.
I’m just sort of wondering how many of us here in the U.S. would take up the fight ourselves if an occupying force drove tanks into the center of our towns unnanounced (whether they were there for reasonable purposes or not), and opened fire. Remember, all these people knew is that there were tanks and soldiers shooting in their direction… I can certainly understand why civilians may have joined in the fray, and why the situation got so quickly out of hand.
I rarely bother bringing up personal politics any more regarding Iraq, because zealots never listen to evidence, regardless of how credible. I’m a US citizen, born and raised, by an American father and an Iraqi mother. I speak maybe ten words of arabic, and while I have relatives who still live there, I haven’t ever visted there, or seen them in years. I do feel, however, that I have a pretty unique perspective on both sides of the situation, ie. what the average Iraqi, and the average American both think about the occupation of Iraq by US forces.
I think both the criticism of everything the US is doing in Iraq is wrong, but the dishonest justification which were given for us being there in the first place, and the complete lack of a post-victory plan (both when we went in, and now) is unforgivable. We Americans often feel we have justice on our side, and sometimes we use the emotional response this engenders to overstep our legal and fair authority. I think we most certainly did this in the case of Iraq, and the backlash is hurting us more and more every day. both in Iraq, and abroad.
That being said, I think we owe it to them to get at least the basic standards back on track. While the US forces have done much good in a lot of places in Iraq, it’s been 8 months since we “liberated” them, and residents can’t rely on reliable power or potable water in the capital city of 7 million people. That alone is going to keep weakening support for the US mission in Iraq, whatever that mission is now claimed to be.
I recently saw a disturbing “unreported statistic” gathered from international aid organizations (such as the Red Cross) stating that the daily death toll for Iraqi civillians from US forces was estimated to be between 40 and 50 per day. During Sadaam’s regime, this the death toll was estimated at 32 civillians a day. I can’t see how the Iraqis are really better off, with us there.
~sigh~
Former TV Journalist checking in here. Let us examine the following phrase for bias, shall we?
“US troops in the Iraqi town of Samarra have admitted to perpetrating a bloodbath, with one occupation spokesman confirming nearly four dozen people were killed.”
“admitted to perpetrating a bloodbath”
Hmmm. The word “admitted” carries with it the aura of a guilty party confirming his or her guilt. “Perpetrating” connotes commission of a crime. “Bloodbath” brings to mind a violent attack on a number of victims.
Reading this statement with no other context would have you believing that the United States summarily killed a number of innocent Iraqis and is now admitting the crime. This illusion continues with the statement
“one occupation spokesman confirming nearly four dozen people were killed”
“Confirming” that they were “killed”. Also, please note that the statement refers to the dead as “people” which has a connotation of innocence, rather than as “attackers”.
Does the statement address the fact that the Iraqis were laying in ambush, having set up a barricade to stop the convoy in the kill zone? No. Does it say that they shot first, thereby making them attackers? No.
I realize that any attempt to pierce the ideological haze that surounds some of you with logic and common sense is a wasted effort. But I thought I would try.
What would I do if someone drove tanks and Bradleys into my neighborhood?
Not fire small arms, that’s a certainty. I’m not itching for martyrdom or fedayeen status. Sounds like there were some people with some pretty heavy weapons shooting at our guys, or merely suicidal.
Me, I’d start expanding the little pit my beagle created in the back yard, pronto.
ammo52, I’d like to know if you’d still gloat over the dead after considering this picture.
Although I’m just an American, I’m one of the few that’s aware of la Furia Roja and Raul (I admit to rooting for ManU when they’re facing Real). My point was that you were criticizing others for the the lack of discretion in their names, and yours is hardly a bastion of Quaker virtue, no matter where it comes from. Nor do the words daisycutter and ammo carry any sort of political connotation, in my opinion. Heck, for all we know, DaisyCutter’s first name is Daisy, and ammo52 is a reference to a power forward for the the old Washington Bullets (American basketball team).
My point was that your attack on their screen names was silly and inappropriate, and more than that, it was beneath a poster of your longevity. Criticize their posts if you want – and there is plenty to criticize – but let’s try and stay within the bounds of logic, shall we?
PS – In an effort to appear more mature than I really am, I have omitted any reference to South Korea, and I specifically deleted a frivolous comparison between the name “ammo” and a certain shootout with a certain host country in 2002. I hope that helped.
FYI – the late, unlamented Cutter named himself after the bomb. Seeing as Mr. ammo has used such colorful words as “raghead” and much like the late Mr. Cutter s/he accuses people of differing political beliefs of supporting terrorism, I don’t think that assuming the word ‘ammo’ in the username has a political connotation is a very dramatic leap.
I’m aware of the bomb, and I’m aware of ammo52’s childish namecalling. But how do those facts lead to the conclusion that their names are reflective of a political orientation? Are you saying that only one party uses daisycutter bombs or ammunition? Are you saying that only one party engages in namecalling? Why do ammo52’s arguments mean that his name must be politically motivated?
Again, criticize their posts, which are open and obvious. Criticize their names at your own risk.
As to the civilians joining in on the attack:
Clearly, as pointed out, civilians attacking armored vehicles are not using the best strategic judgement, to say the least. But how is it they are armed to begin with? I have heard much said about how common AK-47s are in Iraq, but surely people don’t carry them about in public, on the way to market?
When soldiers start letting loose with machine guns, the likelihood of innocent passersby being hurt rises to the inevitable. So I could see different spins and counter spins here.
Americans will, naturally, want to believe that only insurgents were injured, despite how this flies in the face of reason, machine guns being as indiscriminate as they are. The opposite spin will seek to exagerate their numbers. An extreme opposite spin might very well claim that the innocent dead leapt to the defense of thier countrymen, but would be hesitant to explain how they happened to have weapons handy.
In a way, it hardly matters. In invasions and occupations of this sort, innocent people die. We accepted this fact when we invaded, we accepted the responsibility as well. The justification was that it was necessary to our defense and security. As this has proven to be a steaming load, the weight is just that much more.