Iraq is a political subject.
Iraq, again
-
Even though CC was faster than me again :)…. i will add some points.
@Xi:
C) ‘i strongly would recommend to look for better sources.’ Please, recommend 2 or 3! Thank you,
Have a look at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=EurostatEurostat has only limited data for free, the other might be more fruitful.
Or else, google it :)…… Germany has between 2-4 million (official: about 3 million, less than 0.5 million of them eligible to vote), France in most sources has less muslim inhabitants than Germany.
But even if there are more: In the paragraph were you mentioned islam, you started with “fundamentalist muslim” and then proclaimed that about 1 in 10 of all muslims would be fundamentalist. The actual and official number for islamists in germany is less than 60,000, less than 2% of the muslims.
Remembering your numbers (8 million muslims, 1-2 million voters, 0.8 million islamists) … well, you called yours facts, right? Please, give me your source. My source probably won’t help you, coming from the german webpage of the Bundesministerium für Inneres.- Germany is not in the same region (on the same continent) as France? Are they not both part of the EU? Guess I need to get a new World Atlas ,
They are in the same region. A region is not a country. The EU is not a country. I know, you will say this is me picking on semantics. But then, i don’t expect you to understand everything i write as i meant but as i have written. BB and i had some more problems with each other on that.
- please, note the word “appears” in the WMD statement,
Oh, i see. I will quote you quickly:
@Xi:
Iraq - Which it now appears has WMD
I must admit, the two verbs confused me into picking the one that you wanted as the infinitive (right word? unconjugated verb…)
Yours sentence allows two interpretations, and i picked the wrong one.
Maybe you see why i pick on semantics, because such things happen less.- as to interests … what world leader, of any regard in history, did not look out for his/her country’s own interests. Don’t we all hope that those are his/her interests? Then,
- “safety and security” related to threats and violence against the nation and citizens.
Ok, i hope that (and history has shown some of those) world leaders don’t look out for their countries interest on all costs. Following hegemonic urges might be in one countries interest on a first glance, but will lead to conflict (which usually is not in ones interest). Trying to stabilize by balancing the powers worked much better for peace, safety and security.
I consider that one of the easier lessons of history.8 )‘WWI’ … a good example of stupid 'joining or following larger agreements,
Well, i see WWI as a result of Germany not following the “balancing” path as it did before Wilhelm II. with Bismarck, instead (during Willys reign) trying to get more influence. As well, you (as US) didn’t join early or because of treaties, so you consider it would have been better if the US had stayed out of that war, and followed its own national interests only?
… Well, maybe… that could have spared the world suffer from Hitler and WWII, if the germans had “won” in WWI.- ‘why should France or Germany spend a single Euro?’ Diplomacy! ,
Wait…. we should follow an appeasement policy at you? You left the path of diplomacy. Until you return onto it, there is absolutely no reason for us to lick your boots. You want us to do what you didn’t? On what reasons?
- ‘See how the US tries to makes friends.’ This was after a few of our soldiers were blown away by ‘innocent civilians’ who got close and went BOOM!
(1) from the iraqi side, using suicide bombers is a good strategy: creating distrust between invaders and natives. And that worked perfectly in Vietnam, as history tells us.
(2) why do the UK soldiers behave so differently, even under the same threat?@F_k:
‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
Well, if you call them “liberal nuts”, it just adds to the credibility of the movie. Plus: I do know the difference between documentary and “pure entertainment”. If others don’t, don’t blame me.
(and restrict your use of foreign languages to things that fit ;) ). -
(2) why do the UK soldiers behave so differently, even under the same threat?
Different? How so? :-?
-
I quote:
“The British appear confident that they have reached some level of security in four southern towns. Today, British troops had changed their combat helmets for berets in Umm Qasr, As Zubayr, Rumeila and Safwan, British officials said.
Lockwood said the berets makes the soldiers appear more friendly and approachable, and build confidence on both sides.”from
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/4_1_03iraq_tipping.htmla rather “old” article, but the above behavior is part of what i meant.
-
from the iraqi side, using suicide bombers is a good strategy: creating distrust between invaders and natives. And that worked perfectly in Vietnam, as history tells us.
:D The US was not, in fact, invading south Vietnam. They were defending it from the North. Had they been in North Vietnam, the line between enemy and ally would have been alot clearer and the tactic would not have been as successful.
I think defining a suicide attack against a military target as terrorism is used because it is considered unconventional.
Riding up in a non military vehicle with a pregnant hostage and waving soldiers over close enough so you catch them in your explosion is unconventional.
I don’t see Americans or the British doing that. Or Australians for that matter.If one is going to say that military bombings of military related targets, that may and has caused collateral damage, is terrorism, than ever single army that has ever, throughout history, marched to war is nothing more then a gang of terrorists.
-
@F_alk:
I quote:
“The British appear confident that they have reached some level of security in four southern towns. Today, British troops had changed their combat helmets for berets in Umm Qasr, As Zubayr, Rumeila and Safwan, British officials said.
Lockwood said the berets makes the soldiers appear more friendly and approachable, and build confidence on both sides.”from
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/4_1_03iraq_tipping.htmla rather “old” article, but the above behavior is part of what i meant.
Okay, I fail to see what your point is. :-?
Are you suggesting that the US soldiers are mis-percieving the threat and/or should deal with it differently?
-
The Iraqi capital city is liberated. :) Iraqi citizens can be seen cheering in the streets. :D
-
Believe it or not Moses, that’s still not enough to justify it for F_alk. :(
-
De facto.
-
Mr. Ghoul,
True, the US did not invade in Vietnam… but for the strategy to create distrust, that was probably even better, with supposed allies turning against you.For the bombing of “military related targets”, i agree with you there as well. But Coventry (bombed by the Germans) was not a military target, and in the very end, the allied forces bombed german cities for no ther reasons that they had not been bombed before!
That is terrorism.
(As you might notice, i do not defend the Germans, but as there is more than black&white, these bombings were “evil” by both sides!)D:S,
Misperceiveing: probably, to a part
bahve differently: Yes, absolutely. To create trust, to appear as liberators, who bring freedom, justice and fairness, not to appear as oppressors or occupiers… the Brits behavior is much better suited.
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH? -
@TG:
The Iraqi capital city is liberated. :) Iraqi citizens can be seen cheering in the streets. :D
- stolen from a right wing, pro-war, conservative rag:
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some news agencies have refused to show the bloody images – especially civilians killed by U.S. “cluster bombs” – because they’re too graphic, according to Amnesty International.
“Videotape of the victims was judged by Reuters and Associated Press editors as being too awful to show on television,” an Amnesty release said this week.
“Independent newspaper journalists reported that the pictures showed babies cut in half and children with their limbs blown off. Two lorry-loads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, were seen outside the hospital.”
These are the grim realities of war. But we’re not seeing much of it.
Instead, we watch satellite-guided missiles hit distant targets. We see tanks roll into cities, mortar fire strike buildings and a few Iraqi soldiers flee compounds under heavy fire.
We see some images of prisoners of war and the occasional slain Iraqi soldier.
But let’s face it, from the perspective of our living room couches, this has been a relatively antiseptic war – free of blood, maimed bodies and dead children.
If we didn’t know any better, this war was almost entirely about “targeted” bombings of government buildings and jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets.
It’s not that there’s been a shortage of casualties. No, they number in the thousands. It’s just that we’re not seeing them.
And if you don’t see them, if you don’t hear the stories of the grieving families and the shattered lives, you get a lopsided perspective of the war.
I’m glad that Saddam’s reign is at an end - probably a lot more than the anti-war protestors. Of course it’s an important propaganda exercise for Americans to see the happy Iraqi’s, and not the blown up ones.
- stolen from a right wing, pro-war, conservative rag:
-
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?
Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT? :P :P :P
CC, some of those so-called “cluster bomb” attacks on civilians are simply claimed by the Iraqi’s to be our missile. What proof do you have? The Iraqi’s are shooting missiles up blindly because they can’t turn on their radars, and is anybody surprised when the missile just falls back down to Earth?
As for your main point, this war probably is censored a lot. I don’t neccessarily see the value is showing us bloody bodies. Don’t we already know that people are getting killed?
-
but for the strategy to create distrust, that was probably even better, with supposed allies turning against you.
I would agree with that.
I would also agree that “carpet bombing” a city is something you could define as terrorism. -
@Deviant:Scripter:
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?
Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT? :P :P :P
Putting up the US flag? Well, if you like it, then it must be something everybody likes, right?
CC, some of those so-called “cluster bomb” attacks on civilians are simply claimed by the Iraqi’s to be our missile. What proof do you have? The Iraqi’s are shooting missiles up blindly because they can’t turn on their radars, and is anybody surprised when the missile just falls back down to Earth?
Hmm, but you agreed with BB when he talked of people who want to see only what they believe, didn’t you?
Well, the proof is that neither the US or the UK have denied using cluster bombs, we know the effect of cluster bombs compared to rocket debris falling down.As for your main point, this war probably is censored a lot. I don’t neccessarily see the value is showing us bloody bodies. Don’t we already know that people are getting killed?
[blackest sarcasm]
Hey, it was only “people getting killed” in the Twin Towers, wasn’t it?
[/blackest sarcasm] -
Propaganda is a two way street.
Now, I do belive that Iraqi civilians are being killed, however, I question the number that Iraq claims. According to some, America hasn’t even enter Iraq yet.
And I’ve have seen civilian dead and wounded from other stations shown on CNN/CBC. Why is it, though, I only see women and children. Do American bombs not hit men?
How come the Arab nations don’t show Saddam’s regime hanging women for waving at coalition forces. Or the displaced Kurds living in tents, barefoot and under dressrd, in the cold mountains of Northern Iraq for fear of Saddam. Why don’t they show the dead Kurd women and children that were gased by Saddam in 88’ as a reminder to why, in part, that coalition forces are in Iraq.
I also wonder how much Arab nations mention the female POW that was saved. No doubt brutally raped and beated.We all know American military advisors are no angels here and there is Amercian bias on American TV, but what nation dosen’t have a spin on their news.
Lets keep it in perspective.
America is going out of its way, like no other nation at war, in history, to avoid civilian death. It doesn’t make it ok or completely justify it, but it should be acknowledged. -
Mr. Ghoul, I totally agree. It seems some expect Americans to wage a war that kills no civilians and yet seem to look the other way when the thugs use women and children as shields. Some might say that they are fighting to defend their homeland. Bull. Those thugs who use women and children as human shields are not fighting for Iraq and the average Iraqi.
Al Jazzera is barely showing those Iraqis that are cheering the Americans, rather they are still showing dead babies and women 24/7. I’ve heard many Arabs are angry at local media for lying to them, they find it hard to understand Iraqis welcoming Brits and Yanks as liberators while foreign governments and foreign people say otherwise. Who should you believe, average Iraqis or Al-Jazerra?
I also note that Iraqis have looted the German Embasy and a French cultural mission. It seems the Iraqis think the Franco-German Alliance was supporting Saddam and not Iraqis. Those dumb Iraqis just don’t get it…. or maybe those smart Iraqis do get it after all.
BB
-
BigBlocky, would you rather Al Jazzera did not exist? It sounds like it. Its not perfect, but its not state controlled either. Its the only free news source in the region.
-
I’d prefer a biased Al Jazzera over typical Mid-East state run news, and that is what we have. I’d prefer an objective Al Jazzera over a biased Al Jazzera however. Al Jazzera is new, hopefully they will establish a legacy of fair and balanced news.
However, to show a small crater and some dead people and pronounce this as an American bombing aimed at civilians is worse then just bias. First, a 500 lb bomb makes a huge crater, an Iraqi AA missle crashing to the ground is far more likely.
CNN didn’t start saying that the female POW was violated in all kinds of ways and stir hatred over what might or might not have happened. Al Jazzera would have.
It is very dangerous for the people in the middle east to paint a picture of American colonialism that is not true. I doesn’t do anyone any good except Al Jazzera getting better ratings. There are laws in the west to prevent new organizations from making blatent lies to sell papers as it were, no such law exists in Qatar so naturally Al Jazzera will stretch the truth or lie with no fear of repercussions…… except make a tense situation worse.
Tell the truth by all means, but don’t pass off personal opinion as facts.
BB
-
…It seems some expect Americans to wage a war that kills no civilians and yet seem to look the other way when the thugs use women and children as shields. …
Good for you to say “it seems”, otherwise i would have pointed to the bottom of my posting, to what i quote of you there.
Al Jazzera is barely showing those Iraqis that are cheering the Americans, rather they are still showing dead babies and women 24/7.
That would fit to a less biased news :)…. every one of the free, non-embedded journalists says that the population reacts much calmer when there are no TV-cameras around.
I also note that Iraqis have looted the German Embasy and a French cultural mission. It seems the Iraqis think the Franco-German Alliance was supporting Saddam and not Iraqis. Those dumb Iraqis just don’t get it…. or maybe those smart Iraqis do get it after all.
Oh, i have a nice idea: why do we see those pictures? Why don’t we see the Iraqis who are actively hindered by allied forces to steal the UN inspectors cars? … It seems like some media have an interest to get those pics around, and make a big fuzz out of them, maybe in a try to justifiy something…
Did the news that it was M-16 ammo found to be shot at the Russian diplomats make it to you?
Did you hear of Iraqis plundering their hospitals, creating an even bigger crisi there? So much for your mention of their “smartness”…Al Jazzera is new, hopefully they will establish a legacy of fair and balanced news.
Well, you probably will never call them balanced ;)…
However, to show a small crater and some dead people and pronounce this as an American bombing aimed at civilians is worse then just bias. First, a 500 lb bomb makes a huge crater, an Iraqi AA missle crashing to the ground is far more likely.
I would accuse the claim that it was aimed, but not try one of those strange conspiracy-theory-like explanations…… well, i then could bet that the Iraqis were told to plunder french and german buildings … that is about as paranoid as your claim. Less paranoid would be the claim that the allied troops (being too few to be everywhere) protect just a few buildings and leave others alone, with some reasoning which building should be protected by the higher commandeurs there.
It is very dangerous for the people in the middle east to paint a picture of American colonialism that is not true. I doesn’t do anyone any good except Al Jazzera getting better ratings. There are laws in the west to prevent new organizations from making blatent lies to sell papers …
Oh… if you want a “fair and balanced” news, then they cannot be privately controlled (and thus dependant on their ratings), but of course, they also cannot be state-controlled, can they?
Hey, would you accuse Fox of the way they present the war? They are pretty bad in looking at ratings only, etc.
For the “painting” … we will see wether we get something like US colonalism, or not. If we don’t, everyone will be happy (including those who have warned of that before), if we do… well… then the warners have the bad luck of being right.Somehow, many of those pro-war-people to me seem like the Trojans in the “Illias”, after Laokoon warned them of the wooden horse…
Tell the truth by all means, but don’t pass off personal opinion as facts.
Is that your next New Year’s resolution ;) ?
-
F_alk, didn’t I read that when you served in the German conscript army there were several people in your unit that you how did you describe them as, ah yes, nazis. Of course you said you secretly loathed them but of course didn’t rock the boat and speak out against them, how brave of you. That is the difference between you and me. I don’t silently endure nazis. My mouth has gotten me into situations that were not pleasant, but at least I always felt I had done the morally right thing and damn those who don’t want me to rock the boat. It explains why you think the rest of the world should do nothing against the Saddams of the world. You would cloak you inability to stand up to tyranny in words like “There is no legal precidence for standing up to brutality in a unilateral fashion”.
I have no need to debate anybody on morality who admits to forming a tight bond with nazi-like people to the point of defending them to the death. I lament the fact I had to say this, I was trying not to read your crap, but like a motorist who just must gawk at an accident I looked and didn’t like what I was reading.
I will refrain from making any more personal comments about you, you should do the same to me. This forum is not about you and me.
BB
-
Ding-Ding!
Ending Round Score:
–----------------------BigBlocky: 1
F_alk: 0LOL! :wink:
Suggested Topics
