| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Comments:
<0> Americans' call for removal of Iraqi PM threatens rift with Shias http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article354245.ece
<1> "Friction between the Americans and the Shia, who make up 60 per cent of Iraq's 27 million population, escalated sharply after at least 16 Shi'ites were killed in the al-Mustafa mosque by Iraqi and American Special Forces on Sunday night."
<1> lol... I guess waiting for the facts before printing a story aren't the independent's way.
<1> sheesh
<2> ajofi, interesting, where's the letter?
<3> i love the whole idea that whiners put out there like politicians shouldn't make money they should work for free, never have any money.. etc etc etc
<3> wahhhwahhhwahhhhhhhhhh
<4> I voted for Reagan twice, and I voted for Bush Sr., I am a traditional conservative, I am a registered republican, so don't try to put me in some extreme left wing category, I'm a patriot to this country, which is more than I can say for most of the republicans in either house that support a majority of Bush policy or just keep quiet out of fear
<0> glock21: what facts are in error?
<2> ajofi, interesting, where's the letter?
<0> glock21: And how does that make the intervention in the politics of Iraq's sovereign government legitimate?
<0> what letter?
<2> The letter Bush wrote
<0> How the hell would I know? The article doesn't say letter, in any event.
<2> But you did
<0> No I did not.
<5> tailor: we the "little people" are not allowed by the media to read it.. we must meekly accept the biased journalist interpretation of it
<2> [10:20] <0> "Mr Bush has written to the Shi'ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim
<1> ajofi... none, the facts are still being disputed. Was it really a mosque or was it just office space? Was it Iraqi forces or both US and Iraqi forces that did the killing? These are still not known... US says it wasn't a mosque, Sadr loyalists say it was, US says it was the Iraqis who did the killing, Sadr loyalists say it was both.
<3> half the people who sit here and bitch about how much money politicians make, would be doing the same thing, "trust fund please!"
<0> That is not necessarily a letter. I did not say "letter Bush wrote"
<5> rusty: you would like this jeep ad http://www.attackofthe****.com/archives/I-always-wanted-a-Jeep.-Now-I-want-one-even-More.html
<1> And pointing that out had nothing to do with the other arguments, just noticed that line while reading the article... seemed a bit glaring to me.
<2> Lupine, yes, and we must wee it as truth when they make things up.
<3> hehehe Lupine i got one for yah
<0> glock21: US admits attack target contained a mosque http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/29/wirq29.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/29/ixnewstop.html
<2> ajofi, well if it WRITTEN, it must be a letter or document of some sort, where is it?
<5> tailor: there is a reason why "reporters" rarely actually quote anymore.. but intead, give their OWN personal interpretation
<1> <0> glock21: And how does that make the intervention in the politics of Iraq's sovereign government legitimate? <-- Better question... how does making a request equal intervention? We aren't forcing them, just asking them.
<3> http://www.visualjokes.com/d/warning.html <--- here you go Lupine=)
<0> tailor: go ask the Independent.
<1> You're using language that seems to imply that we're forcing internal changes when all we did was request.
<2> ajofi, is it your intent to pate inflaming nonsense to the channel? If so we have a cure for that.
<6> ajofi, in the future..only paste 'inflaming nonsense' from tinyurl.com :)
<0> glock21: My point is that Bush is dissatisfied with the democractic process in Iraq. Otherwise he would not have to make such a request, would he?
<5> ajofi: great example of a fraudulent title by the telegraph. The article contains no facts that the "US admits attack target contained a mosque "
<2> ajofi, how do you know he even made the request?
<3> I say we start an "Impeach Hillary" campaign before the presidential election
<1> ajofi... Kerry supporters weren't happy that Bush won, doesn't mean they necessarily oppose the democratic process... just Bush.
<5> ajofi: I have not seen any evidence that he is disastisfied with the process.
<2> ajofi, how do you know he even made the request?
<1> Two separate concepts.
<3> pre-emptively strike her ***
<0> lupine: Very first paragraph.
<5> glock: right, but the difference is so monumental, that ajofi can't see it
<5> ajofi: that is the reporter's personal opinion. it is not fact.
<5> ajofi: notice the intentional lack of quotes of what General Peter Pace said. Why is that?
<0> lupine: You're welcome to your opinion. I see it as meddling to even make the request as we are still militarily occupying the country.
<5> This is a tactic that many reporters now use.. and it's appauling how ignorant people are, that they do not see it themselves.
<2> ajofi, how do you know he even made the request?
<0> lupine: Are you finding any story were an American official is denying that a mosque was in fact hit on Sunday?
<7> We should pull out of Iraq and Invade and take over Mexico next
<5> ajofi: nice.. so diplomacy is a bad thing?
<5> ajofi: non sequitar
<0> Well if there were such denials presumably we'd be reading about them.
<5> there is no need to find an article saying they are denying it. the issue is that this article by the telegraph contains no actual factual statements by a US representative
<5> thier title is not substantiated by the article.
<5> nice: if there are no denials, it must be true. Well, the US military did not deny that little gren aliens from mars landed yesterday.. so of course, it must mean that they DID land yesterday
<0> tailor: I don't know for certain, but it's unlikely the Independent would totally fabricate such a claim.
<5> ajofi: why is the independant different than Dan Rather? or NBC? or ABC? or CBS?
<2> ajofi, why is it unlikely, they didn't give a showing of where the statement came from?
<3> oh god, you HAD to say Dan Rather didn't you?
<5> Tailor: my money would be on "there was a coorespondance, but it did not say what the independant claims was said"
<5> which is why the indepndant intentionally choose not to publish the coorespondance.. as we mere mortals can not be entrusted with reading it for ourselves.
<3> whats the big deal anyway?
<2> Lupine, I would guess they made it up completely, it's a rag.
<5> kind of like how catholic priests did not want the bible translated into "the little peoples language"
<3> people who are against a national unity in Iraq should be removed from power
<0> lupine: How ELSE do you read the first paragraph? There is no quote, but it is saying Peter Pace admitted their target contained a mosque they did not know was there.
<2> The target didn't contain a mosque.
<5> ajofi: I read it as the perosnal interpretation of Francis Harris. And I wonder why Francis intentionally chose not to quote General Pace.
<1> Damn firefox is freaking out.
<5> glock: yea OSS!
<6> The Iraqi forces themselves went into the main target areas. This is the building inside of which, once they got in there, they found a small minaret and a prayer room [which] some people are calling a mosque," Gen Pace said.
<0> tailor: What is your evidence that it definitely did not contain a mosque?
<3> TheTailor the target had "spires" on the outter edge
<6> there's the quote
<1> ajofi... please hold for the reuters story that points out the US claims that the compound was not a mosque and that Iraqi forces were the only ones involved in the actual firefight.
<6> you're welcome
<5> DeD: right, notice that Gen Pace did not say it was a mosque, that they wree unaware of
<2> ajofi, oh I don't know, a PICTURE of the building maybe?
<3> so everyone is running around claiming it was a mosque, but the "mosque" wasn't the target it was the outter buildings
<0> 426hemi: I agree with that ***essment.
<5> besides, if terrorists were using a mosque.. why should that give them safe hazen?
<3> it's a huge huge compaound that included spires, but was not a mosque that Pace was aware of, he said that yesterday in a news conference
<5> ajofi: you see how Gen Pace did not "admit attack target contained a mosque"?
<3> but of course the likes of Ajofi will bastardise the statement for the inflamatory purpose
<2> `426Hemi, worse than that, there was a place where they pray, that's it. That is found in every building in Iraq.
<3> you don't have to go to a mosque to pray
<5> He only admitted that SOME people are CALLING it a mosque.
<3> you can pray anywhere
<5> These are fine distinctions that Francis seems too ignorant to comprehend.
<0> lupine: Correct. He's not getting involved in the debate on whether it is or is not a mosque. To him it's probably irrelevant.
<5> ajofi: and hence, the article's title is an intentional lie
<1> god dammit... this reuters page keeps locking up firefox.
<1> grr
<0> lupine: I disagree.
<3> the other thing is that, you can not consider a place that holds weapons/insurgents/enemies who fire upon you as a "church" it then becomes non neutral territory
<5> ajofi: you just agreed that Gen Pace did not admit it contained a mosque
<2> ajofi, check to see if your information is even half ***ed factual before you troll the channel with it.
<5> rusty: notice there are no angry sentiments for terrorists using a mosque
<3> personally i would have carpet bombed the place
<0> lupine: You don't like the characterization and the lack of detail early on in the article. This is potentially misleading to anyone who does not read the entire article. It's a legitimate complaint, but it does not make the article's title an intentional lie.
<3> flattened it to the ground
<3> let it be known in no uncertain terms that if you use a religious area to launch attacks that you will not be in a "safe haven"
<5> ajofi: the title is not substantiated by the article. It is also not substantiated by Gen Pace. I say it is an "intentional" lie, because i would HOPE a title is intentionally written
<0> intentional lie is a redundant term anyway
<3> ohh and BY THE WAY!
<8> The U.S. military says an Iraqi special forces operation , with U.S. advisers, engaged militants, killing 16 of them, detaining 18 and freeing an Iraqi hostage.
<8> They reject the description of the compound as a mosque and say bodies were moved to stage scenes, displayed repeatedly on government-run television, of apparently civilian victims.
<8> http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-28T183005Z_01_FRI863484_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA-CONTROL.xml
<0> to tell a lie means you're trying to deceive with intent. Someone who unintentionally deceives is misinformed/clueless/stupid - whatever, but not a liar.
<8> seems to work on the pc version of firefox
<3> the Shiite and Sunni Iraqi's made up the greatest numbers of the raiding force
<5> SoS: right, hence the telegraph is lying
<8> Lupine... not really.
<0> OK very interesting SoS.
<3> not American troops, USA troops were only a small portion of the raiding force, if anyone would know what a mosque was/is, it would have been the Iraqis themselves
<8> They're reporting something as fact even though there is a dispute over what is fact in this situation.
<0> So how is it that a staged event like this has ended up on government-run television?
<2> ajofi, and you posting it here fits the description you give as a LIE.
<5> SoS: General Pace did not "admit" the target contained a mosque
<5> SoS: Oh, I am not talking about whether or not it was a mosque. I am talking about the title, which claims teh US admitted it has a mosque.
<5> when general pace did no such thing.
<0> tailor: What?!
<3> Lupine the other thing is this, you don't see the Iraqi force commanders speaking on this at all, all you see is insurgent sympathizers who probably weren't even there
<5> 426: yep
<8> The Sadr guy seems to be the one behind this fiasco.
<2> ajofi, you intentionally p*** that unsubstantiated **** to the channel.
<0> I am not trying to deceive with intent.
<2> SonOfSpam, the moving of the bodies?
<0> You don't like the source, complain about it and be done with it.
<2> ajofi, yes you are.
<3> SOS I have said for about 2 years now that Muqtada Al_Sadr needs to be arrested/taken out, he is a murdering thug
<3> nothing more nothing less
<9> Abusive Domain or User
<0> You saying it does not make it true, Tailor.
<8> Lots of reports on the incident imply or directly state that the Iraqi forces *and* US forces were involved in the killing, which the US disputes.
<8> Also lots of reports call it a mosque even though that fact is still in dispute.
<3> Iraqi forces made up the biggest part of the raiding force
<2> ajofi, if it weren't true, you would check the story out forst instead, you troll the channel.
<8> And don't mention the fact that those facts are in dispute.
<3> the USA only backed them up
<2> err, first even
<0> You're suggesting that I *KNEW* it was not true, yet posted it anyway.
<8> The take the insurgent propaganda and print it as fact without mentioning that the facts are in dispute even though the facts are disputed.
<10> netanyahu placed 4th???
<2> Linus- ***aulted a mosque in San Francisco!
<10> that's like out of the money
<10> he had musk on
<10> o couldnt resist
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#microsoft
winterroed
HEDDICAN
#hardware
contribulatory
welstone filters
#worldcup
#beginner
naked girl.ru
skeedaddy wav
|
|