PDA

View Full Version : In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead



crom
04-12-2004, 12:03
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1366348,00.html

Interesting? or what?

Nagant Guy
05-12-2004, 00:28
Not at all interesting. The Guardian isn't like a real newspaper from what I can gather. Kind of like the British version of the Weekly World News.

They did of course help George Bush win the last election, but I don't think that was intentional.

I did read this article, but it was not well written and didn't present facts. Just some vague accusations and loose associations that are supposed to make me think the US military is evil.

Not nearly as funny or as interesting as Radio Moscow or Radio Havanna that I used to listen too back in the '60s. They were much better at writting propaganda.

J.D.
05-12-2004, 01:53
Originally posted by Nagant Guy
Not at all interesting. . . .


I did read this article, but it was not well written and didn't present facts.

Not AT ALL interesting?
Hmmmm

"Didn't present facts"?
So it is all fiction?


"Not well written"
Are you suggesting that means it's not true?

Nagant Guy
05-12-2004, 09:17
By not well written I mean that it does not present a clear case for what they seem to be trying to present. That makes it uninteresting. Does not mean it is or isn't true,.

By "Didn't present facts" I mean that there was no evidence presented in the article. Just more ranting.

J.D.
05-12-2004, 10:05
First you confuse 'facts' and 'evidence'.

Further more you claim they did not present any evidence.
They presented a considerable amount of evidence.
Was the evidence true?
Did they properly document their sources?
Well that's another story.

Talk about poorly written.

Ghost
05-12-2004, 10:41
The Guardian is a crock. I place no more faith in that paper than I do in the US Enquirer or World News.

Idiot Amin
05-12-2004, 11:18
And the author of the piece (of ****e) is Naomi Klein, who, to put it mildly, has an agenda and is looking for attention. She is the anti-branding, anti-globalisation wannabe counterculture guru of the moment. Naomi, your fifteen minutes of fame will be up soon. Enjoy 'em while they last!

Cocheese
05-12-2004, 20:21
There are quite a few Nobel laureates and other distinguished members of academia who have written in The Guardian. If you're a Christian fundamentalist or something of that ilk, you should probably stick to Fox News and The 700 Club, but don't embarass yourself by insulting a newspaper that caters to logic-minded people.

Sparafucile
05-12-2004, 21:47
>> The Guardian isn't like a real newspaper <<

You patently know nothing about British newspapers.

Stick to the reading the Journal of the NRA - it's more your style.

Billy T
06-12-2004, 02:11
I admit I know very little about the gaurdian, but I do figure if its getting bashed by faux news fans, there might be something good to it....nothing makes me laugh harder than faux news fans decrying al jazeera....two sides of the same coin....i also find it telling that the only people who ever tell you faux news is "fair and balanced" always seem to be cons/or repubs...what a strange coincidence.....

and as for civilian casualties- if our cause is so just and so right, why then can we not be shown them, like adults?

Filimon
06-12-2004, 03:29
Guardian is nothing like a tabloid. We have News of the World and The Sun for that. I do admit though they do like to stir up controversy. On the other hand I would never call them "not a real newspaper".

Halyavshik
06-12-2004, 08:43
I don't see anything remotely tabloid-ish in the article. The author very clearly cites all her contentions with dates, quotations from US sources and generally accepted historical events.

There may be a little --or considerable-- spin involved, but either way, the article is certainly disturbing and worthy of consideration.

What's more disturbing, in my opinion, is the outright and blatant bashing of it. Why are some so eager to immediately dismiss as propoganda anything that remotely criticizes the US military ? Why are we so convinced of our own moral authority ?

Ghost
06-12-2004, 09:32
Who says we're dismissing anything that criticizes the US military? I'm certainly not - and plenty keen on the f-ups that the US military is part and parcel to.

But whenever the Guardian is quoted on any thread here, it's the Brits who leap and say something like "Hah! This from the Guardian?" or "Like the Guardian saying it means I'm supposed to believe it!"

All the information I've gotten from reading Brits speak of that paper (minus this thread, of course) leads me to believe that unless the Guardian is attacking Bush or the US in some way, it's all BS. But when it IS attacking the US and Bush, ah well...then it's true!

Hilarious!

Ned Kelly
06-12-2004, 09:44
i usually find the guardian a terrific read though you need to have quite a lot of background on an issue because the basics tend to get short-shrift to opinion and argument - even in its news.

i thought this column was tripe. generally, i only like the guardian's sports columnists because they're the only ones consistently exhibiting a sense of humour. then again you'd want one writing about english sport every day!

Ghost
06-12-2004, 10:02
I hear you. I should have read the writing on the wall and not responded to this thread. It's just going to go down the line of US bashing once more. That's what's popular nowadays, so what else is there to discuss? :)

Call me when we get back on the fresh topic of Moore and WMD.

-Ghost

DPG
06-12-2004, 10:18
Ghost - Politically speaking, the Guardian would be on the opposite end of the spectrum to Bush, which is why you think what you wrote 2 posts up (and you'd likely be right!)!

Try the Telegraph (.co.uk) for something where opinion would balance that of the Guardian!

Ghost
06-12-2004, 10:26
To be honest, and this may get some folks to groan, but I really like the Moscow Times. I like the opinion section, and the news seems well balanced as far as agendas are concerned.

Just me though.

Ned Kelly
06-12-2004, 10:26
and the spectator, whose columnists have the sense of humour the guardian's so obviously lack.

Ned Kelly
06-12-2004, 10:27
...though it is absolute right-wing bollocks!

Halyavshik
06-12-2004, 13:13
Originally posted by Ghost
Who says we're dismissing anything that criticizes the US military?

Well, Nagant Guy did. First response to the original post. Said it was article designed to make him think the US Military was evil.


Originally posted by Ghost
But whenever the Guardian is quoted on any thread here, it's the Brits who leap and say something like "Hah! This from the Guardian?" or "Like the Guardian saying it means I'm supposed to believe it!"

All the information I've gotten from reading Brits speak of that paper (minus this thread, of course) leads me to believe that unless the Guardian is attacking Bush or the US in some way, it's all BS. But when it IS attacking the US and Bush, ah well...then it's true!

Hilarious!

I have no idea what others have said in the past or present. I don't know the Guardian any better than I read ancient Greek, which is to say, not at all.

What I did find, was a relatively well-documented and compelling response from one of their writers which others slammed with little or nothing refuting the article other than to criticize where it was published.

I'f I'm gonna say that something's utter bunk, I'll tell you why. Otherwise, it just looks defensive, if you ask me.

Ghost
06-12-2004, 13:48
Originally posted by Halyavshik
if you ask me.

I didn't :p

Don't you have a movie script to go star in?