muslims PART 2

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hmm....still a lot of turmoil in this case, but I think the truth is going to come out soon. IMO, she's falsely accusing. She may have been so traumatised from part I that she was desperate to...I don't know .

I don't want to hold any definite ideas about the case, because I'm all for getting the criminals, but on the other hand, she has a history...

Where's this from, Hector??

[inked]

Of Salmon Rushdie and Hollywood types.....

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...E25717,00.html

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Where's this from, Hector??

Zimbabwe?...or do you mean, what do I read? The Tennessean, USA Today...I rarely watch Television News...I DO listen to NPR.

[Lief Erikson]

. . . continued from page 11 of Venting Thread II.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I seriously doubt they have the saddam regime figures to hand, Lief - and of course even if these "figures" were available - there would be the issue of qualifying said pre-invasion Saddam Hussein regime "official" figures anyway, journalistically - that in iteself is rather a hot potatoe.

First of all, even if there aren't any Saddam regime figures available (we don't know about this), they could compare the figure given with yearly violence records throughout coalition control of the city. That way, even if we don't know how badly the coalition is doing, at least we can see the trend and how significant a change in the trend this is.

Also, some of these killings are the result of politically motivated death squads. If these are included in the number of dead from sectarian violence, then Saddam's Baghdad political killings should also be included in the number he slew. That would make Saddam regime killings and modern sectarian killings more comparable. The point is that again, we just don't know how bad the figure is without anything to compare it to.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

but if you think that there either were 1500 or so violent deaths every month or that the "official" party figures would show there were ...welll ...... ??????????? *BB is flabberhghasted* (you get the point! ) - this is not America (no offence!) but even in London that is many years worth of violent deaths - even for America too!!

And this is Iraq we're talking about, not the United States or Britain. The United States and Britain are not countries that are undergoing reconstruction, so a higher crime rate in Iraq should be expected.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

the story is a report on this news just in ..lastest figures show etc .... it is SO carefully neutral to the point of being an assinine degree of limp reporting of the facts and say nothing at all ...

Except that people will look at that disembodied figure and say, "6,000 people dead in Baghdad in one year! Clearly the coalition in Iraq is failing!" If it had said, "violence in Baghdad increased this year by 20% over the violence in 2005," that would have been a far more alarming figure. That's not a disembodied number- we'd have a comparison and could see a definite increase. Then people could draw their own conclusions from the data. Just saying "6,000" though leaves a big open question mark. It might just as well have been a decrease of 20% from the previous year. People will see the big 6,000 and think that things are falling apart, but the article doesn't give enough data to show what the number means. That leaves the article unhelpful and potentially misleading and politically biased.

Another interesting figure comparison I'd like to have seen them make (though this is not necessary, it would have been nice) is an estimate on how many insurgent deaths are recorded, compared to the number of coalition and Iraqi deaths.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

One thing you can say about the oppressive dictatorial style of ol' Saddam - he did cut right down on crime - literally if given half a motive!

I don't think so. From what I recall reading, people paid his police to get away with crimes, and those who couldn't pay were tortured.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

But the main hub of the matter, here, i think is a transatlantic thing: we speak english, and you guys ( heh -NO OFFENCE HONESTLY!!! ) you guys think you speak the same language!!

Lol!

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

methinks you take this the wrong way with regard to what is meant by 'Sectarian'

Sectarian has been used to describe Sunni vs. Shiite violence, not the insurgency's attacks. The insurgency is the organized rebel force that is trying to tear down their government and destroy the US presence in Iraq. The sectarian violence is caused by the anger between Shiites and Sunnis, for the Shiites have gained power through the democratic system and many Sunnis are angry at this, since they have lost power. That has caused them to many times join the insurgency. The insurgency has tried to provoke sectarian violence through its attack on the Golden Mosque and others since then, in the hopes of starting a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. That Sunni vs. Shiite violence is sectarian violence, but the insurgency is the organized rebel and al'Qaeda force that is trying to oust the democratic government and the coalition presence.

[Nurvingiel]

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was a secular regime, and doesn't really have anything to do with Islam now does it?

Just saying,
Nurv

[Lief Erikson]

I'm not arguing that it does. Actually, I was just talking with BB about BBC News. I just couldn't think of any better place to put this conversation, since the Venting Thread was clearly out. Besides, since the disputed article does relate to the war in Iraq, it does sort of relate to Muslims, in an indirect and debatable way.

[Butterbeer]

we are apparently on different planets.

you seem to have an agenda you wish to push at the expense of everyday rational opinion or debate.

the BBC article (and you can take this professionally) is very carefully and neutrally written.



anything beyond that is your own axe to grind.

The article meets all journalistic and objecivity criteria within miles.

I suspect you have got the wrong end of the stick on a linguistic matter.

and please, no offence, mate - BUT do not get me mad trying to tell me of all people what the BBC means by insurection and Sectarianism.

Do i try to tell you what a west coast fencing term means????

Quite objectively, i can only assume you confuse the British terms for something else if you find ANY angle in that carefully written piece of insipid pap as was that article.

do the manly thing here Lief and just accept you took a convulted and historical and media savvy British terminological term the wrong way and from that read in X...Y... & ...Z!!

best , BB

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was a secular regime, and doesn't really have anything to do with Islam now does it?

Just saying,
Nurv

???
what's that gotta do with the price of cheese Nurv?

Wotcha Nurv btw!

Long time!

how ya didlin' girl? *blows kiss*

very best, BB x

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

we are apparently on different planets.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and please, no offence, mate - BUT do not get me mad trying to tell me of all people what the BBC means by insurection and Sectarianism.

I read BBC News regularly and very much like the news site. I think it tends to have a liberal bias because this is something I've seen frequently in the years I've regularly checked the site.

The first time they started using the term "sectarian violence" was when they began describing the growing threat of civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. I never saw them use it before, when referring to the insurgency.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

do the manly thing here Lief and just accept you took a convulted and historical and media savvy British terminological term the wrong way and from that read in X...Y... & ...Z!!

That term is not my main point. The number 6,000 being offered without statistics of comparison to show what the number means is a real problem though. Their offering the number 6,000 (which sounds big and makes you think the coalition is failing) without showing whether that number is big or small through comparative statistics presents a potentially misleading and politically biased message.

I can't find this story on any of the other major news sites I generally check either (NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, LA Times), which further indicates they may be making a big deal out of something that for Baghdad isn't a very big change for the worse.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I read BBC News regularly and very much like the news site. I think it tends to have a liberal bias because this is something I've seen frequently in the years I've regularly checked the site.

I remember I was in Russia when HH Pope John Paul II died, and the BBC was the only English-language newstation available. I thought they did a fairly good job overall, and didn't present it too strongly a liberal light (though it did shine through sometimes; it's just not nice to call a two-day dead pope "totalitarian" ).

[Lief Erikson]

You're right. I like BBC News, which is why I keep getting my international news there every day . The liberalism does shine through too, though surely not so badly as on other sites. When that bias does come through though, it does annoy me, which is why I decided to just bring it up in the Venting Thread.

[Lief Erikson]

News Flash:
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead!
His death in a US air raid along with other militants and at least one civilian is the result of weeks of planning and information collecting. Hours after his death, the US launched seventeen Baghdad raids that they say brought them a "treasure trove" of information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5059494.stm

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

News Flash:
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead!
His death in a US air raid along with other militants and at least one civilian is the result of weeks of planning and information collecting. Hours after his death, the US launched seventeen Baghdad raids that they say brought them a "treasure trove" of information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5059494.stm

Burn and rot in Hell.
72 virgins? I think he's going to wake up and find 72 pit bulls chewing on some uncomfortable private parts- for Eternity.

[Lief Erikson]

More good news from Iraq . . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5117170.stm
Oil output is improving steadily, and is at its highest now since the invasion.

[hectorberlioz]

And so peace-loving Muslims start killing and burning once again...what happened? Someone pointed a finger at Muhammed...Il Pape quoted an old Emporer's opinion that Muhammed spread Islam by the sword, and that is was a barbaric religion. And then the muslims start burning and killing to show us just how non-violent and peace loving they really are...thus proving the quoted opinion by Benedict right...

These people, I am supposing, are not used to being criticised and not being able to chop something up...

Why is it though, that they protest remarks by someone far away, and yet they do now protest the things that really hurt them everyday, like carbombings etc...?

"Get in Line! We're peace-loving!"...Peace at an price, my friends, means squat. You can be dead and have peace, you can be in jail and have relative peace...
Freedom is the real thing.

EDIT: Mind you, that this does not convince me that all Muslims are like this.

[Falagar]

These people, I am supposing, are not used to being criticised and not being able to chop something up...

Well, this is a region that never saw the enlightenment - their culture hasn't experienced such a phase from the inside.

Why is it though, that they protest remarks by someone far away, and yet they do now protest the things that really hurt them everyday, like carbombings etc...?

I don't think the majority of these people are hurt by car-bombings.

Freedom at any price means squat as well. Freedom without your loved ones? Freedom without resources? Freedom without the possibility of utilizing it?

Happiness is the real thing.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Well, this is a region that never saw the enlightenment - their culture hasn't experienced such a phase from the inside.


I don't think the majority of these people are hurt by car-bombings.

Freedom at any price means squat as well. Freedom without your loved ones? Freedom without resources? Freedom without the possibility of utilizing it?

Happiness is the real thing.

Well, when I said they did not protest carbombings etc...I was referring to Iraqis.

Yes, Happiness is the real thing, but to get it; do you need peace or freedom?

Freedom at any price is the fight for the future happinesses; even if you aren't one of them that will experience it. Peace at any price is temporary, and things end up boiling over anyways.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

EDIT: Mind you, that this does not convince me that all Muslims are like this.

Then I suggest you edit your post a little more.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, when I said they did not protest carbombings etc...I was referring to Iraqis.

Yes, Happiness is the real thing, but to get it; do you need peace or freedom?

Freedom at any price is the fight for the future happinesses; even if you aren't one of them that will experience it. Peace at any price is temporary, and things end up boiling over anyways.

You need neither for happiness.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Then I suggest you edit your post a little more.

Or I suggest you don't read racism into everything.

Being racist is saying that all Jews should be wiped off the earth.

Saying that the Muslims are being violent and hypocritical after someone says somthing about them - is stating a fact.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You need neither for happiness.

You sometimes need to fight for one though, and that is freedom, since you could have relative peace from being slaughtered...


Nobody has disagreed or agreed with my opinion of the actual situation though...you guys plan on lumping me into a couple more racism tumblers?

burning of "Benedict"

[/*]The Irony of it all...
~
On a lighter note...They're All Full of It