Nope, not me. That's the <b>second</b> time you've mis-attributed something unkind towards you to me. What's going on here?!?! Slander.
As John Stoessel would say, "Give me a break!" No one, myself included, said that MacBeth was happy about this. I did accuse him of "enjoying" the circumstance and using it to further his agenda. Please note that I used the quotation marks in the origianal post. Note that he doesn't seem to realize or accept that these tragedies happen and just have to be accepted. He wrote: "The point of contention might be that we have decided for the Iraqi people to put ourselves in a situation where our accidents cost their lives, and at least according to some people we have done so to save them." Civilian casualties are estimatedd in advance I would bet my bottom dollar. Why do you think Saddam was given an additional 3 months on top of the first dozen years to get the hell out of Iraq? Later MacBeth wrote: "...given the PR nightmare that this will be, possible <b>except</b> in the US (this was probably an accident)..."
I respect your opinions although it takes time to sort out all the facts and to recieve a "factual report". It seems that the first or second reporting of any story leads to "further developments" at a later time. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A marketplace in the Iraqi capital was not an intended target of a U.S.-led coalition attack, Pentagon officials said. The U.S. response to the incident came after Iraqi officials earlier in the day accused the United States of bombing the Baghdad market, killing 15 people. Television images from regional networks showed crumbling buildings, burned out cars and injured people from the Baghdad bombing, saying the Iraqis blamed coalition bombs for the damage. At a Wednesday news conference, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the Pentagon did not know what caused the damage and deaths at the marketplace. McChrystal said coalition forces did not target any sites in the area. He said the damage could have been caused by a surface-to-air missile fired by the Iraqis or fallout from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery. U.S. Central Command Wednesday said it destroyed nine surface-to-air missile sites around Baghdad in the early morning. According to McChrystal, the attack was separate from the marketplace incident, but added, "We can't make any assumption. We do know we did not target in the residential district." "We do regret the loss of any civilian life in any conflict," McChrystal said. Reacting to images of the incident, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said both Iraq and coalition forces need to do better to avoid civilian injuries and deaths.
OK fine, why would say he enjoyed the circumstance. And I know it wasn't you, but Behad, that called him Sadam. What happened in the killing of civilians here, or the civilian bus from Syria that U.S. planes hit is sad, whether that kind of thing is going to happen in a war or not. There is nothing wrong with bringing it up.
Ever heard of a thing called context? As I mentioned, this topic introduced by, say, treeman (or name your Righty), would have gotten a much different reception than when introduced by MacBeth (or name your Lefty). It has to do with motives and no amount of your wishing is going to change that. His citation of the news story was not without some "editorializing" in my and others' opinion. The two don't mix too well if you are claiming just to be a reporter. I'll go out on a limb here... let's say his motives were pure. Are we wrong to assign the same motives that we see in almost every other one of his posts about a topic such as this?
1) ok, I've had it...could you point out past posts of mine where I was subjective and biased? Here are my credentials when it comes to objectivity: A) I am both an American and a foreigner, therefore have both perspectives, and no bias for or against...I decide if our actions are right or wrong on whether they are right or wrong, not on whether they are American or not... Can you say the same? B) I have both supported and opposed different wars in the past,based on what I percieved to be their justification, therefore have no bias either way, only a high standard of what qualifies as justified...Can you say the same? C) I am neither Republican nor Democrat, and in fact favoured Bush over Gore in the last election, albeit as the lesser of two evils. The person in American politics right now for whom I have/had the most respect is Powell...therefore I have no consistent pro or anti Bush bias, and have made my decision about the right or wrong of this war without any affiliation or opposition to Bush...Can you say the same? D) I have spent years studying military history and international relations rather than getting my information on same from one or two particularly biased news or information sources, like CNN for example, and I watch CNN, BBC, Canadian news, and many others, and therefore have no political or geo-centric source of information bias...can you say the same? Yes my position has been consistent; I didn't come up with it over a pint, I spent time debating the issues...and if you will take a look at ALL my initial responses to things, like for example my initial response to the thread about Haliburton and the VP, you will see that I immediately state that we will have to see if this is true or not, and thin about it before coming to conclusions....Can you say the same,or did you automatically dismiss it and defend the Administration before the info was in? I am really amazed at incredibly biased people who consistently take one position who state that I am biased, (despite having none of the knee jerk responses they do for the reasons above) BECAUSE I am consistent with my views when I express them...and then to site treeman of all people as a source of objectivity, just because he is amongst the most common and consistent supporters of your 'agenda'...it defies description. And then to accuse my report of bias...and when it turns out to be true ( as I earlier predicted, you will note) there is no acknowledgment of wrong, no admission of their own bias which lead them to erroneously acuse me of bias fpr reporting facts, but now the reasoning is that my reporting of facts was tainted by my previous bias...unlike...get this...it would be if treeman reported it...God Almighty... So I challenge you, giddyup, where is my bias beyond a consistent approach to this war, which you have? What is my prejudice about anything which biased my reasoning in concluding what I have about this war? I challenge you to respond to all the questions I asked about the criteria for bias..and the same goes for anyone else who has jumped on the latest " Blast the Messenger" bandwagon to sidestep something that they don't want to address head on.
2) My editorializing, if you will risk becoming more biased by consulting the source of info I was citing, the BBC, was done entirely in the downplaying mode, and in no way reflected my opinion of the incident...the 1st time anything like that happened, you will note, was when I defended our military by pointing out that this had to be an accident, and not a non-military target, as was implied...whereupon I continued and expressed a bit of my still at the time formulating view...So I state the facts, if anything underplay the BBC reactions, in a subsequent post defend the military, and then state a bit of my opinion prefaced by the word "might"...and that is editorializing to further my motives!?!?!? Give me a break. Has anyone who accused me of painting this a certain way even seen the BBC broadcast which I was quoting? Not that any of you would ever jump to conclusions without facts because of your...er...'motives'?
<b>MacBeth</b>: I did not cite treeman as a source of objectivity. I was simply conjecturing that this news story if provided by him would have come without what I called your "cynical" editorializing. You were a victime of our "prejudice" but guess what? Prejudice is not always inaccurate... I do not criticize you for having bias. I have mine; you have yours. EVERYBODY IS BIASED. I've recognized that many times. I said that I don't agree with your bias and it was leaking out all over the place in your supposed "objective" reporting of this news event. I don't think you were being as objective as you think you were. I cited the language in previous posts that led me to that conclusion. It jived with your general attitude toward this Administration and this War. Several have observed this trend as well-- not just me. That is all I am saying. Who is more "incredibly biased" -- you or me?!? I imagine that we are all equally biased because our stance is just what it is.
GIDDYUP... Ok, let's take a look at my editorializing leaking out all over this report...One line at a time... 1)" The BBC is reporting that a US missile attack on a Baghdad market has killed up to 15 people, with many more injured." Ok...is that accurate? Is there bias there? I reported exactly what I read on the tv screen, except I added " The BBC is reporting"...to cite my source. 2)" Film taken in the region showed an incredibly angry and distraught mob of people yelling at the camera and gesturing towards the bomb site, and holding up what appears to be shoes and clothes of some of the victims." Ok...is that accurate, or editing? If you have seen the film in question, as reported by others here who have, that was bang on...in fact I downplayed it, and said the focus of the yelling was the camera, which is what I saw, rather than mention the " Fury at the United States" which the BBC reporter was repeating, nor did I mention that the crowd was apparently yelling pro-Saddam lines, as the BBC reporter claimed, because I cannot speak their language, so restriced my report to what I could identify with my own eyes...How biased of me. 3) "The BBC is reporting this as disastrous news." Well? Isn't it? Did I say disatrous for the US's pro-war cause? No, I didn't...which is funny, given both my supposed bias and the fact that the BBC REPORTER AND ANCHOR DID SAY THAT IT WAS DISATROUS FOR THE US'S POSITION, going so far as to state that they were making martyrs out of the Iraqi people, and saying that they were going about drumming up support among the Iraqi civilian population in exactly the wrong way. I never mentioned any of that, but confined my report to an unspecified 'disaster'...which I think woulf be accurate for anyone. If I am editing in order to support my bias, I am doing a terrible job of it. 4) "Only reports I have seen on US television stated that there were reports, but focused on the fact that they were unconfirmed, and moved on to other news." When I reported this, I had seen virtually nothing about it on US stations, and what I did see was described exactly as told...Again, editorials leaking out? Isn't the point about being objective to show all the info you have, especially if there are 2 potential sides? Am I at fault because all I had ffrom the US perspective was what I said? Was it innacurate? Not at all..I had seen 2 mentions, one a one liner stating that there had been " unconfirmed reports of a missile landing in a market in Baghdad"..that's it, and the other said the same thing, but re-iterated the fact that these reports were " unconfirmed at this pojnt."...Was that not exactly what I said? Also, note my incredible incompetence in undermining the US position on this by calling the US position that this was unconfirmed a "fact"...I really need to take a few courses in HGow To Editorialize In order To Support Your Bias... Ok, giddy...there it is...in all it's biased glory...you, or anyone else tell me where the bias or editorial leaks are? I would argue that the only real critics who might have a claim would be the extreme anti-Americans because the only 'editorial' decisions I made were to leave out all the " Fury at the US" " Pro-Saddam" and " Making martyrs" stuff...but I stand by my decision to leave it out..I thought it was secondary...
I forgot to mention, in case you think the very inclusion of line 2 is indication of bias, this was the film they were showing over and over again during the report of the news, which was ther lead story, by the way, and by the time I reported it I had seen it at least 5 times...The BBC saw it as hand in hand with the report, I didn't even consider severing them. Was that bias or editorializing?
This is wild. I'm amazed MacB's still bothering at all. Good work though. Stay strong. giddyup and others: The Nightline report of the exact same incident, as cited above, represented it as far more troubling for the administration and the American effort than MacBeth did. He clearly took pains NOT to editorialize. He was reporting something that was a big enough deal to be the topic of Nightline and hadn't been mentioned here yet. And he did it in the most benign possible way. You guys imagined bias and you overreacted. After three pages it's time to just admit that. Or at least walk away. It's silly to keep claiming MacBeth did anything the least bit wrong here. He posted a news report of a big deal event which hadn't been mentioned here and you guys blasted him for it. It was silly to do that -- to continue to defend it is sillier. I know, of course, that my support will be met with roll eyes and dismissive sarcasm if anything. How could it be different with a group of people who've managed to blow off the incredibly diverse group of people (right and left, hawk and dove, American and foreigner, enemy and ally) who've taken issue with at least some aspect of our Iraq policy. I mean, if you're gonna find a way to blow off L. Eagleburger and Stormin Norman, I know you're not gonna listen to me. But I'm surprised the gap bridging moderates haven't shown up here to lend some kind of perspective. MacBeth for all the reasons he posted above is a moderate himself, but it'd be nice if another one stepped up to the plate in light of all the stupid abuse he's taken in this thread.
I would have thought that would be a given. I can't believe that even fairminded pro-war conservatives wouldn't have stepped up to say no the abuse MacBeth has taken in this thread. The emphasis would, of course, have to be on, fair-minded. But one of the reasons I've always liked this board, is that it seemed like for the most parts no matter what the issues, people from both sides were pretty fair-minded and tolerant of differing opinions. Here, however, is something that just happened and not even really an opinion, and people jump on MacBeth for posting a factual incident.
It is a shame when someone reports a breaking story (I see no bias in the original post) and gets called insulting names for it. Is this the direction America is headed? Isn't this why we are fighting in Iraq? to rid the citizens of Iraq from? It's called Oppression. Is it wrong to have a different opinion? Is it wrong to question the stories the American news stations show (or don't show us) about the war? I respect people's right to know both sides of the story. The only way to know the real story is to have ALL the facts. I thought most people who posted on here were civilized enough to argue without resorting to name calling. I have been proven wrong.
While I find myself central in this melee, I don't believe that I have called anyone any names. MacBeth may only be guilty of parroting the BBC bias. Batman shows up with his specialization: telling people how to think. I tell MacBeth I don't like his thinking and why but I don't have the temerity to correct him a la Batman.
Just to point out: this is where my criticism of MacBeth began not with his initial post. May as well get the facts straight.
That was a long work meeting Once again MacBeth, you make the preferential treatment argument. You completely wipe out the context of my comment and act as if there is no history behind it - that I merely chose to comment on what you prefer to call the lesser of two evils. You are very well aware where the "insulting" and "narrow-mindedness" lines come from [<a href="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54168">post</a>]. They are <i>your</i> accusations tossed at codell, and I responded at that time to say you are hardly free from such characteristics. You said other than calling someone a "nitwit" that you have "insulted no one" here and that without examples, I was dealing in "generalities". I pointed out an example and you threw a hissy fit. This was a one-line crack to that reference, and the next sentence I said there was nothing wrong with posting what you did - and that in fact it was good to know. Yet you continue with this charade that since I didn't blast these posts, blasted you and didn't respond enough to your content (when in fact I did, and it was you who ignored mine), it "smacks of preferential treatment" by an administrator. I understand you live in a world where conspiracy theories are hip, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I rarely respond to political posts unless prompted and when I do, I make no secret that I don't share much in common with the far left. Yet there has never been a case where this played any kind of role as an <i>administrator</i>. I made it clear it was <b>not</b> admin action and I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why I should not be free to respond to a poster who uses offensive rhetoric aimed at me, directly or indirectly. As for the topic of this post, has it yet been proven this was a stray U.S. missile/bomb?
Ok..let's deal with the facts...you have accused me of bias and editorializing in my reporting of the news event. You criticized my use of the words "incredibly angry", "mob", "distraught" and "disastrous" as examples of this and, while we are concentrating on facts, all come from my initial post, not the one you now claim is the source of your accusations. This after accusing me of enjoying the event in question, and then sort of qualifiying it by saying that I wasn't enjoying the deaths per se, but was ignoring them in my joyous effort to see this only as an event which supports some sort of agenda you claim I have. Do you see a pattern here? You kept accusing me of using bias and editorials in my news report until it is pointed out that I was 100% accurate, and only erred on the US side you say I am biased against...at which point you, despite the fact that the original accusations, WITH QUOTES FROM THE NEWS REPORT are still in this thread, you try to backtrack and point out later posts where I admitedly was starting to give my opinion, as were you and everyone else...as it WAS NOT A NEWS REPORT, but a response to another post...SO how could my response with opinion be decried as a biased news report!?! Answer...it can't...just like the quotes from the actual news report can't somehow be interpreted to be reflective of a problem with a later response post...or accusing me of enjoying the incident can't be rationalized by saying I am so sociopathic to enjoy it because i don't see that there are deaths involved... Giddy...if you had any class you would apologize rather than make these pathetic attempts at trying to pretend you didn't say what you said once it's been shown to be wrong. You did me a great and insulting disservice...if you are a man you will own up to it. What is mnore you might consider that the bias you saw in my posts might have been seen through the same eyes which assumed it was there in the news reports...I asked you to answer the criteria I gave for objectivity, I showed how I have absolutely no bias in this matter aside from, through considered and educated reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this war as it stands is unjustified, irresponsible, and hypocritical. You have chosen to not answer that either...Do as you see fit.
I m glad you responded... 1) You have misunderstood me, although I can see how...when I made the distinction between my content and my behavior, it wasn't meant as saying that that was what you dealt with, I agree that (in your mind ) you dealt with my content..I meant that when you reproach me on my behaviour, rather than when you disagree with my content, then you are operating as an admin, as it is in your capacity as an admin that you have banned people...for their behaviour. Do you see what I mean, about the misunderstanding, if not my point? 2) Even if you are not operating as an admin, and are just another poster w/regards this topic, I would point out the inconsistency of often criticizing people on one side of a political argument for their behaviour while ignoring behaviour at least as objectionable from the other just because one side happens to agree with you. For example I have objected to pro-war-at-this-time folks for what I see as continually sidestepping issues they don't want to address by attacking the messenger...yes, even beofre this thread...but if you look I have been consistent with this, and have asked for the same consideration when the situation is reversed. In other words if it's right or wrong behaviour then it has nothing to do with sides in a political argument, and only pointing out the behaviour you see as objectionable on one side of a political argument is unfair and preferential if you are an admin, or inconsistent and hypocritical if you are just another poster. 3) Re your contextualizing argument...ok, if you accept that you were only pointing it out to me because you felt I was hypocritical in observing it in others, then why didn't you point it out in others who have been insulting and biased and have accused me of being so in this thread itself? If, that is, it has nothing to do with which side of the argument we happen to be standing on? 4) I don't know if you got a chance to rad it yet, as you just got back, but if I am just dealing with you as another poster, I would ask you to look at the challenge i issued to anyone here who is calling me biased...I outlined my past stnaces on everthing relevent to this discussion, and have..anyways, it's a page or so back, but I would ask you to read it and answer the same questions...where is my bias, or, as you call it, close mindedness? 5) Welcome back...enjoy the break...
You don't have to write a tome to be editorializing-- a word or two still qualifies. I don't know the text of what you heard, but I read the link the RocketmanTex provided and found only one word in that same category. I have never backed off of anything I said. I qualified what I said. I pointed out that in a blind fury people were overlookig that I place the word enjoy in quotation marks. That changes the meaning. I know you consider yourself a wordsmith so you can't misunderstand that simple fact. You have not bias? HA! You call the war "unjustified, irresponsible and hypocritical" or did you just come to that conclusion since your original post in question?!? We are held together with bias. That's your own blindness there buddy. I know you are more perfect than the rest of us...
So how do you explain the fact that you are now claiming that your comments re : bias and editorializing in my news report were based on my comments after that same news report in a response post...despite citing quotes from that same news report as evidence of whhat you saw as bias and editorializing?
