Well, he may want to talk to another Iraqi refugee
Or perhaps he could talk to Salam Ali, head of the Iraqi Communist Party, the biggest pre-Saddam party in Iraq:
But are my press-releases not enough to trump your blogs? Then let’s look at what an Iraqi-American jurist has to say:
Or do you want articles from newspapers? What about this one about the Iraqi exile community in Australia?
Do you really want to engage in duelling anecdotes, or do you have some non-buttogenic data to offer?
Daniel
December, that response wasn’t even marginally on topic. I picked out two quotes taken from OTHER SOURCES, simply referencing Somerby so that I wouldn’t be claiming that I noticed this myself: I didn’t cite Somerby’s opinions or positions as evidence of anything, or claim his expertise. Red herring.
The entire usage was about an example: an example which you’ve simply failed to even mention (Which, I guess, supports Sam’s complaint that “what is wrong with the SDMB” is that people won’t respond to evidence).
You then divert to arguing about anti-war bias, implying a conclusion on the very subject over which we were arguing. This thread isn’t even about anti-war demonstrators per se: a distinction YOU laid down in starting the thread!
I really lose faith sometimes that these tactics are untentional: they seem very calculated and systematic.
Apos: “[T]hese tactics…seem very calculated and systematic.”
:light bulb:
And now a special report from the December News Network….
Good evening. Our top story is to issue a warning to all patriotic Americans. A mole, cleverly code-named December has been hired by a “pro-Saddam” organization, affiliated with the BBC, to goad left-leaning and centrist Americans into posting in favor of balanced media, the right to protest and other subsersive anti-American activities on the Internet. These posts are then dowloaded and e-mailed to embedded BBC affiliates in the Iraq region who print them out and arrange for them to be read by Iraqis under seige as they sit down in front of their home entertainment units and watch the BBC on cable television.
<cut to interview with Iraqi in Basra>
“Well, yes, up until a few days ago, I was waiting eagerly to be liberated by the Ameri…, um, Coalition forces. After all, humanitarian crisis shmisis. But just lately my local Baath party representative suggested that I start watching the BBC. Well, you should have seen my face when I learned that British reporters think it’s ‘gloomy’ when their soldiers are missing. That really had me confused about American intentions. I said to my wife, honey, no rebellious uprising for us. Come to think of it, I think I’ll support Saddam too now.”
<cut>
And now for a word from our sponsors, the Bechtel Group, the experienced nation-builders…
That was a neat switch from BBC’s “bias” to anti-war protestors.
Sorry, but what? The BBC defending itself against accusations of bias is to you evidence of bias?
I suggest you find some actual evidence or basis for the serious claims you have made, or that you retract the OP.
That anecdote was just an anecdote, but I do see evidence of bias when the BBC defendes itself selectively. Why haven’t high executives of BBC made similar appearances with organizations or individuals on the other side?
Note that accusations of anti-war bias are widespread, as I have shown. Lord William Rees-Mogg, in the Times. Credentialed letter-writers in the Times. Noted columnist Andrew Sullivan. The BBC’s own embedded correspondent in Iraq. But, the BBC has not chosen to debate any of these parties. E.g., it would be most interesting to have a debate in the Times between Lord Rees-Mogg and the BBC on whether they have an anti-war bias. Or, a similar debate on Sullivan’s blog.
The OP had a fair amount of evidence of bias.
december: "…but I do see evidence of bias when the BBC defendes itself selectively. Why haven’t high executives of BBC made similar appearances with organizations or individuals on the other side? "
december, your digging yourself in on this one is really spectacular. Do you believe yourself in possession of every statement the BBC as made to everyone who has written and complained about bias? The letters Sullivan cited were written to a newspaper, not to the BBC–they did not call for an official response. Neither did Andrew Sullivan’s blog rant. Has anyone asked the BBC to “debate” Andrew Sullivan? Has Sullivan? The BBC official was probably invited to speak at the Media Workers meeting. Do you know of any such event organized by groups accusing them of a pro-war bias?
“The OP had a fair amount of evidence of bias.”
By now you are possibly the only person reading this thread who believes that Sullivan made a strong case that the BBC is biased (and still less that it’s bias causes casualities!). So I’d say, yes, I agree. The OP did have a fair amount of evidence of bias. Evidence of very blind bias: yours and Sullivan’s.
Have you, btw, listened to or watched the BBC yet?
Glad to see you honestly admitting your lack of knowledge. You may be almost as ignorant as I am. 
I would guess that Sullivan or the London Times or the Sun would be tickled pink to have a debate on BBC bias. It would be a popular feature with their readers. So, the implication stands: the BBC appears more concerned about complaints from the left than from the right.
Regarding the strength of the evidence: the BBC’s own embedded reporter accused them of anti-war bias. That’s strong evidence IMHO. He ought to know better than anyone else whether they’ve accurately reported what he told them. His e-mail include several examples. The fact that he wrote the e-mail is also telling. It’s not easy, and not always safe, to tell your superiors in writing that they’re not doing their job properly.
Here’s a reason why not to take him at his word. It’s just as likely that 1. HE has lost his objectivity and is upset that the paper staff doesn’t see things his way, and like yourself, he sees only one possible view as rational and objective. 2. Objecitivity is really very supple, and perhaps he has qualms with the way in which his papers try to be subjective- for instance, letting both sides of a debate tell their story instead of blandly reciting the facts. 3. He’s got an ant in his urethra.
You’re saying that we need to take him at his word because we have no reason not to. Well then, I tell you that I’ve heard news that Micheal Jackson told me he was going to bathe in the blood of a hundred virgins to keep his youth. Why not take me at my word?
The political climate surrounding the length of the war has gone something like this: the politicians dont want to say EXACTLY how long it will be, because they dont want political fallout afterwards. But the pro-war people both 1. breed the notion that Iraq will be either instantly annhillated or surrender en masse and 2. do nothing to correct the RED-BABOON-BUTT OBVIOUS fact that many people think the war will be over in a matter of days. Those few politicians who are for peace scream and rant that it wont be easy, and the politicians responces are to shhh them as quickly as possible.
Of course the politicians are now looking back through their speeches for evidence that they “always told us” the war might take awhile. But who the HELL are they fooling? George W’s admin’s message going into this war was NOT “this may take years and cause thousands of American/Iraqi death. Are you sure you wanna deal with that, America?”. It was “dont worry dude, it’ll be easy. I saw this on TV once.”
-C
Not that I’m saying it’s necessarily true, but hasn’t it occured to you that the objective facts might actually BE against the war? American rhetoric may have made you accept that the only rational view is one that at least aknowledges that the necessarity of the war is, at worst, a matter of opinion? Is it impossible that the BBC is reporting facts when it points out the flaws in the misson and the protests against it?
Naw, couldn’t be. Anyone who doesn’t see that the war is justified and going well can’t possibly be objective. After all, december, having been to Iraq yourself, I’m sure you can tell us better than anyone which news station is reporting what they see and which ones are touting the party line.
-C
december: “I would guess that Sullivan or the London Times or the Sun would be tickled pink to have a debate on BBC bias.”
On what grounds would you guess that? The London Times is a quasi-tabloid and wants to sell papers, not stage high-minded debate. Sullivan mainly wants to promote himself. What gave you the idea that either of these parties doesn’t prefer one-sided smear campaigns to public debates. What even gave you an idea that the speech made to the Media Workers was a debate?
Again, you’re in total la la land, and the less you know the more la la you get.
“You may be almost as ignorant as I am.”
Considering that I actually listen to the BBC every day, whereas you are still hanging your hat on the same third-hand sources after several weeks, I rather doubt that. 
Sullivan has had various debates on his blog in the past. American newspapers op-ed pages routinely print articles giving both sides of some issue; I would guess that British newspapers do so as well. E.g., here’s an article from today’s Times entitled “Are we witnessing the madness of Tony Blair?” I do not believe that this ariticle represents position of the Times editors, who, I believe support the war.
You are missing the point. What evidence do you have that either the London Times or Andrew Sullivan sought a rebuttal and/or debate from the BBC?
You’ve never read the Sun I take it?? The only “debates” that are popular with their readers are the size of today’s page 3’s breasts, who is sleeping with which TV celeb and what’s going to happen in next week’s soaps.
The BBC, as a publicly funded body, is obliged to address the concerns of all licence fee payers. I’m sorry you see some conspiracy in that but would suggest that it is because, from your standpoint, there are more of these fee payers on your left than your right.
Can I ask if you’ve ever bothered to listen or view the BBC?
I occassionally read articles on the web. I am not a regular viewer or listener.
—So, the implication stands: the BBC appears more concerned about complaints from the left than from the right.—
december, this is getting ridiculous. You presented ONE anecdote concerning how ONE official at the BBC spent a FEW HOURS of his time. You haven’t even begun to make any sort of case at all about what “the BBC” is or is not concerned about in terms of complaints.
The BBC may be leftist biased. It may not bet. I have no idea. But it’s already been demonstrated that both you and Sullivan have such an axe to grind that you are willing to make this case on incredibly weak evidence and unsupported leaps argumentation. I’ve already presented a clear example how Sullivan operates to manufacture the appearance of bias: do you have any sort of rebuttal, or are you going to keep dodging?
I already pointed out that, whatever credentials your sources have, they presented arguments that are refuted by the facts that have since come to light. The Iraqis really ARE using guerilla tactics in an urban setting. The Coalition really DID take significant losses from the use of these tactics (the Marines could have easily taken the Iraqis in a pitched battle: but they were ambushed while trying to accept surrenders). The reporter was wrong, and the reporting he complained about from the BBC was well within the boundaries of principled journalism.
It’s no doubt that reporters embedded with the troops become very attached to them and defensive of them. That’s the genius of the whole program. But it doesn’t make those reporters experts in what’s going on, or their knee-jerk interpretations of coverage a fair and balanced view of what was said.
You have a point, Apos. Things certainly don’t look as rosy as they did a week ago.
Andrew Sullivan thinks thinks this BBC story indicates bias.
I think he has a bit of a point. The BBC story casts doubt on Blair’s description of the deaths as “executions,” but it does not express any doubt on the Iraqi spokesmen’s denials.
Perhaps the BBC assumed that every reader knows that these Iraqi denials have zero credibility. Or, perhaps the BBC thinks they do have some credibility. Or, perhaps the BBC didn’t want to bring up the subject of Iraqi deceptions, since there were no credibility issues specific to these POWs.
—You have a point, Apos. Things certainly don’t look as rosy as they did a week ago.—
But the real point is that they weren’t a rosy a week ago as this reporter has described. The events like the ambushes, which were horrible violations of the standards of war, had already been happening, and this was excatly why British units were being so hesitant to get drawn into the city.
Sullivan left out the fact that the GOVERNMENT cast doubt on the evidence of executions by what it told the familes. That’s the angle of the story: family of dead soldiers are angry that the PM told them something different than what it then told the media. The story presents the existence of controversy over what happened. The Iraqi denials are just that: denials. No one expresses skepticism about them because they don’t hold press conferances with critical reporters. No examines their evidence because there is no evidence. But how could an article supposedly designed to sell the Iraqi view contain quotes like “every piece of information points towards the men having been executed in a brutal fashion” that DO present the best case that can be made at the moment for the soldiers being executed?
Face it: Sullivan will grasp at any thin straw he can spin into a bias. He leaves out the key focus of the story: that familes are angered that they were told something different than what the government said. Instead, he wants us to focus only on two supposing contrasting elements of the story (despite the fact that they are NOT set up as any sort of a direct contrast), ignoring what the story is actually about.