BBC: Reports Say US Air Strike Kills Civilians

You made a post (read biased message) not a news report (read objective reporting). I'm not really sure what you're driving at or why.

My only quotations were drawn from your words not any news story. That you were parroting the BBC angle was just a jocular suggestion (based on your charges of others parroting) rather than an analysis.

I am on my way out of town for the weekend and have no more time for this now.

 

C'mon guys, we are all biased. How else can you explain the disagreement among intelligent people (including me, of course )? Just stop the name-calling and concentrate on dealing with ideas, OK.

 

Of course we're all biased. So what? MacBeth posted a benign account of a news story from the universally most respected news source from our top ally and he's bashed on account of bias. If not observing a news blackout on any story that might cast even the slightest negative light on the war is bias, I give up. It was a mistake to give him guff about it and the ones that made the mistake don't have the honor to admit it. This doesn't surprise me. The continued defense of that bad behavior though really is amazing.

And, by the way, MacBeth posted a comprehensive list of reasons he shouldn't be categorized as a knee-jerk, anti- (or "counter-" god, whatever) American, anti-war liberal and the bad behavers just stuck their fingers in their ears and sang la, la, la. If you're gonna be jerk enough to give him crap, be man enough to respond when he explains his position. He's asked giddyup probably three times to respond to his post regarding "bias," and he's repeatedly ignored in favor of that simpleminded line, 'well, everyone's biased.' I'm really surprised MacB's still responding. It's really not worth his time.

 

Yeah, I'm amazed with MacBeth's patience too. Some of the pro-war people here are making out-of-the-line bashing.

I don't agree with MacBeth. And he clearly is biased, at least as much as myself and probably more than he wants to admit. But he is very civilized in his arguments unless being provoked.

I am calling on those pro-war people to stop name-calling and concentrate on the issues. If you have a stance on the war, obviously you would want to post news reports that strengthen your view. That's biased, of course. But that's the nature of any debate. I am not surprised and don't see any problem with MacBeth posting that report.

 

Oh, BTW, last night I heard (forget the source, one of the Network TV News, I think) one analyst say that Saddam was perfectly capable of bombing his own civilians and blame it to the US. He was just speculating, of course, not claiming that the "accident" was "framed."

 

When you do get time, please note that you are blind. What MacBeth did report was, indeed, a news report of a factual event that took place. Do you deny that it took place? Do you think the explosions that killed the civilians in the civilian neighborhood was just an editorial opinion? Do you deny that civilians were upset about seeing other civilians blown up? Those things actually happened and were reported in the news. They were nobody's editorial opinions, but actual events. If posting factual events = editorial opinion to you, then let the rest of us know, now so that we can keep that in mind when reading your future posts.

 

Good Lord, does anyone actually buy into that "freeing the Iraqis from tyranny" BS?

Yes, I'm sure the Iraqis will wrap themselves in the U.S. flag after we're done installing a friendlier regime there.

 

I don't have time for this tonight, but this irks me. If you are not blind, read what I wrote again and again and again if you need to.

MacBeth's "report" included the words that I consider to be somewhat inflammatory. Even the fact that he chose to post over anything else that could have been posted is evidence of the bias.

I am not complaining about the bias; my complaint is the self-deception that he is neutral. Almost everything he posts is critical of the US and I (among many others) is just plain sick of it.

I'll try to address MacBeth concers (Methinks he protests too much) tomorrow if I have time. Right now I'm home alone with a 1 and a 3 YO and don't have the time.

 

He, Blowhard, in case you didn't read my post, I have been out of town until tonight. I plainly said that I didn't have time to delve into his response. Why do you distort so as to imply that I've been dodging him... three times moreover?

I'll take a look at his list but when I did before, I wasn't too impressed.

Can you or anyone dredge up more than on pro-American, political post of MacBeth's? I'd like to see it.

 

Originally posted by Batman Jones
... I mean, if you're gonna find a way to blow off L. Eagleburger ...


What part of Eagleburger's stance is being dismissed here?

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.

MacBeth may or may not deserve the abuse (I stopped reading this thread in detail a while back), but he's no moderate.

 

Oh this is rich. Cohen, he who has written literally dozens of posts for months decrying the fact that I have labeled some of the other posters "conservatives", have put them in litttle boxes etc. has spoken. Macbeth is not a moderate. .

Cohen, who I guess would declare himself a moderate (he is always quick to proclaim himself reasonable and in the middle neutrally weighing facts, though consistently starting thread, posts and copying article supporting for instance, this war ) has spoken.

Oh you foolish Macbeth quit saying you are a moderate. Oh you foolish Macbeth come to your senses and quit saying you are a moderate. Come to your senses, as you sir are not only not a moderate, you are not authorized to apply labels like Cohen is..

In conclusion if you are against this war, you can't be a moderate. Doesn't matter your stance on any other issue, you, Macbeth sir cannot be a moderate.

 

Cohen, I wish I could edit my post. It was overdone. I wish to focus more on substance and less on personal or process issues.

Macbeth, I'm not sure that you are going to convince these guys that you are moderate, though for what it is worth I think that you are. You should probably just focus on substance, too, and let them label you as they wish. As Bush said: "your with us or agsinst us" and this is how many see this war and support for Bush, especially now that the war has begun.

 

<b>MacBeth</b>: If you had read my posts, you will see that I indeed read the BBC report. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt by stating that I didn't know for sure that that was the text of the storyline you saw on TV or radio-- wherever you first heard it. I further commented that I only found one instance of language that I considered similar to some of the language that you used.

You want an intelligent response to your bias challenge <b>which is entirely comprised of self-reporting</b>.... How do we really approach that?

Do you post a thread for <b>every</b> lead story on the BBC news or Nightlinle? I didn't think so. My point stands

I don't think I ever came out and said that you shouldn't report the story. My point was that it was just predictable. Most of your posts about things political are critical of America. I pointed out that if someone like treeman had reported the story it woldn't have irked me so.

I didn't call you a sociopath. What I said was something to the effect that you were looking beyond the actual individual deaths to the nature of the event (be it accident or poor intelligence) and using the tragedy to further your own agenda.

 

<b>MacBeth</b>: Is this where Clutch called you unbiased? As best I can tell, he only said it was okay to post it. I agree. I just wish someone else had posted it instead of being more of the same from you.

 

Three British soldiers sent home after protesting at civilian deaths

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Three British soldiers in Iraq have been ordered home after objecting to the conduct of the war. It is understood they have been sent home for protesting that the war is killing innocent civilians.
The three soldiers - including a private and a technician - are from 16 Air Assault Brigade which is deployed in southern Iraq. Its task has been to protect oilfields.

The brigade includes the Ist and 3rd battalions of the Parachute Regiment, the 1st battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, a Royal Horse Artillery regiment, and a reconnaissance squadron of the Household Cavalry.

The three soldiers, based in Colchester, Essex, face court martial and are seeking legal advice, defence sources said yesterday.

The Ministry of Defence said it was not prepared to comment on individual cases. It said it had "no evidence" to suggest the soldiers had been sent home for refusing to fight.

Soldiers could be returned home for a number of reasons, including compassionate and medical, as well as disciplinary grounds, defence sources said.

But it is understood that the three soldiers have been sent home for complaining about the way the war is being fought and the growing danger to civilians.

The fact that they are seeking legal advice makes it clear they have been sent home for refusing to obey orders rather than because of any medical or related problems such as shell shock.

MoD lawyers were understood last night to be anxiously trying to discover the circumstances surrounding the order to send the soldiers home.

Any refusal of soldiers to obey orders is highly embarrassing to the government, with ministers becoming increasingly worried about the way the war is developing.

It is also causing concern to British military chiefs who are worried about growing evidence of civilians being killed in fighting involving American soldiers around urban areas in southern Iraq.


soldiers and dead civilians