Yeah and here was his response however I’ll assume he’s rolling his eyes at Der’s constant sloganism.
You accuse me of sloganism ? The guy who talks like a mouthpiece for Bush ?
Yes…the standard knee jerk reaction. I’m well aware that there are folks out there who believe, and not wholly without justification, that the US may have targetted news folks from ‘hostile’ agencies/countries. I think its a load of bull, personally, especially given most of the circumstances (i.e. in hot combat zones all kinds of mistakes and shit can happen), but I am well aware that not everyone believes this…especially not in Iraq. The rolley eyes were for yet another Der over the top rant in so predictable a way. I guess I should have given a detailed explaination of the use to avoid confusion.
!! That banging sound was my irony meter exploding due to sever overload…
-XT
We are speaking of the sort of people who have no problem with kidnapping and torture; my statements are nowhere near over the top. Given these people’s other behavior, I’d consider it surprising if they weren’t taking the opportunity to intimidate and kill political enemies.
Hmmm… I had forgotten this one…
Thats true…the insurgents do use these methods. Its interesting you should so readily point that out in fact! Oh, you meant the US?
Look, even if I accept that the US uses kidnapping and torture (both reasonable statements to accept), unless I further accept that the uses of kidnapping and torture are random or arbitrary (yeah, I know…you accept that unquestioningly :)) its still a far cry from that to intentionally and deliberately targetting news reporters for death. The US has this freedom of the press thingy, and by and large we honor that, even extending it beyond our own shores.
True, this doesn’t mean that evil Bush and his merry men don’t just ignore such and do as they please. However, extraordinary claims (and I believe this qualifies) requires extraordinary proofs…or hell, any proof at all that is objective. It hard for me to accept something like this without some kind of solid proof. I note that YOU, on the other hand, are ever eager to leap to the worst possible interperetation of any data in which the US or Bush appears…which was the reason for the rolley eyes after your first comment.
Things aren’t nearly as black and white as you seem to want them to be…the US is neither the good nor bad guy in this little drama…and I conceed that neither are the Iraqi insurgents, by and large (Note I make no similar concession for the foreign fighters who came to Iraq simply to bag their limit of Americans). The entire mess is a study in shades of grey.
I accept, with some degree of shame, that my countries behavior in Iraq has not been optimal. By the same token though I realize that NO country, having put its crank so securely in the golf shoes could have managed any better…and most would have fared far worse if history is a judge. You simply could not fight such a war, or have such an occupation without having all the shit that has stuck to the US happen…its simply not possible in that environment IMHO. Better, by far, to have never gotten involved in the first place. I’m sure you agree with that much.
-XT
While I find no reason to disbelieve that the President who stages his own speeches in a way to pre-empt any sight of the demonstrations organized against them (“Free Speech zones” anyone?), got mad when his intelligence services had the temerity to point out that Hussein was not involved in the WTC/Pentagon attacks, and was willing to use falsified “evidence” to start a war, would desire to destroy the studios of a foreign news agency reporting negative information about assaults carried out by U.S. forces,
I find it much more difficult to believe that the typical grunt has any idea who various foreign journalists might be, making the “targeting” of individual journalists by random squads of soldiers at scattered checkpoints problematic, at best.
There have been a couple of odd events that might deserve closer inspection*, but I suspect that the majority of combat fatalities among al-Jazeera newsmen and photographers were the result of them covering the story from the perspective of the people at whom the U.S. forces were shooting, rather than a deliberate targeting of them as journalists.
- The wounding of Giuliana Sgrena and the killing of her Italian Secret Service escort (which I do not believe was a targeted “hit”) still seems rather odd.
Reasonable ? We admit it, and most of us don’t care.
No, I simply don’t care. People who kidnap and torture others are monsters; I don’t care in the slightest if it’s “arbitrary” or not.
Hardly; it’s even worse. You are basically arguing that somone willing to murder me would never stoop to rob me as well.
It’s hardly “extraordinary”; it’s no more than any sensible person would expect from Bush and friends. Brutal thugs act like brutal thugs, given the chance.
Since the perpetrators are in control of the investigative agencies and the crime scenes, there will never be a serious investigation, conveniently for you.
Garbage. We are most definately the bad guys; invaders, torturers, rapists, thieves and murderers.
…hmmm. Concession Accepted.
Well, so have the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre
Yes, I realise this is “an isolated incident” by “a few bad apples”, but not all those participating in the insurgency deliberately target civillians.
Thieves? Do Iraqis have anything that US soldier would want to steal?
Oh, come on. This really does sound like conspiracy theory bullshit. You are asserting your own lack of proof as evidence that there is a conspiracy to conceal something- which is rubbish.
There are independent journalists in Iraq, and if the US cannot conceal massacres committed by its own soldiery in an isolated area with no witnesses left alive, how would they be able to cover up the systematic murder of non-Iraqi civillians whose employers and colleagues would have both the means and motive to try and uncover the truth? Individual acts like the bombing of the Al-Jazeera reporters (not aided by Bush’s inability to seperate any arabic sounding name from “Al Qaeda”- I’m wondering if he’ll propose to bomb Al-abama next) are suspicious, but the lack of a wider range of incidents (which, again, would probably have come out- the US has revealed a complete inability to hide even the worst of its excesses from the public eye- see also Abu Gharib) makes me question the idea of a wider conspiracy. It is one thing to say that the US administration in Iraq has, in individual cases, ordered their soldiers to attack areas with a disregard for the lives of journalists in those theatres (something I do not accept in and of itself), and that mistakes may have been made in combat, and another to argue there is a systematised campaign of murder directed against journalists in general.
Apart from anything else, the fact that the majority of foreign journalists are confined to Iraq’s “green zone” by insurgent violence means that the US wouldn’t need to order their intimidation. Also consider that the reputation of the US troops for being trigger-happy may well discourage all but biased “embedded” journalists for reporting from combat zones anyway.
Or, in other words, never attribute to conspiracy what can be easier attributed to cock-up.
Why live in a country that is so bad then?
Contrary to common belief, Al Jazeera has never broadcast a beheading of anyone.
For its impact I cannot speak. But for its reporting, in my personal opinion (I read both Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, and I’m only discussing their websites), Al Jazeera’s reporting is more pro-Sunni and anti-American. It would not qualify as inciting, but would not always qualify as objective either. Daring, brave and innovative, definitely. But sometimes they emotionalise issues and use loaded language. On the other hand, they do give equal air time to Americans and Iraqis of different stripes. And they are as critical of Arab regimes (and very, very often of Hamas) as they are of Americans. Opinionated is how I’d describe them, which can be a bad thing when you’re a news agency, but a good thing when you’re a television channel.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide any cites and this is only my personal opinion.
I may be biased because their reporting on the Lebanon Syria crisis was very pro-Syrian, and I’m Lebanese.
Because it’s better to change the (screwed-up) leadership and improve the nation than to give in to dispair?