NationStates Jolt Archive

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.

On Sunday, American troops freed 42 Iraqi prisoners from what military officials described as a Qaeda hideout northeast of Baghdad. Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman, said some of the captives appeared to have been tortured.

The raid was part of a security effort involving 3,000 additional troops sent to Diyala, a violent province north of the capital with a mixed population of Sunnis and Shiites. Colonel Garver said the hideout had been found because of a tip from an Iraqi, and that all 42 freed prisoners were receiving medical care.

“Some of the rescued stated they had been suspended from the ceiling,” he said. “Some of them stated they had been there for four months. One young man stated he was 14 years old.”

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is, as well as how our soldiers continue to act bravely. One wonders how a story favorable to our side made it into the Times...

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?

Let me try and get this straight... you create conditions in the country in which terrorism thrives, you enable al-Qaeda to set up in Iraq, and now you complain about them being cruel?

Let me try and get this straight... you create conditions in the country in which terrorism thrives, you enable al-Qaeda to set up in Iraq, and now you complain about them being cruel?

You call shooting people making conditions "favourable" for them? Boy, you are really screwed-up.

You call shooting people making conditions "favourable" for them? Boy, you are really screwed-up.

Destabilise a country, and this is what you'll get.

Destabilise a country, and this is what you'll get.

Hmmm, well it certainly should have been done differently. But are you saying we should have left Saddam in power over-there?

Hmmm, well it certainly should have been done differently. But are you saying we should have left Saddam in power over-there?

Considering you invaded for all the wrong reasons and he was the only thing keeping the country from becoming a civil war-ravaged wasteland; considering you did it against the will of the entire world; considering your only interest was oil (otherwise you'd be in other countries "for democracy"); considering the rationale changed more than Michael Jackson's face over the years; considering you squandered the good will of the world; considering this caused MANY more deaths that it would have ever prevented; considering this rallied terrorists against you...

YES!

Hmmm, well it certainly should have been done differently. But are you saying we should have left Saddam in power over-there?

Nope. I'm saying if you want to remove a dictator, you better have a good plan for dealing with his former subjects afterwards.
As it is, you stumbled into a mess, created an even bigger mess out of it, and are now complaining about getting dirty boots. Sorry, I find it hard to feel sympathy.

I do pity the population of Iraq, however, being dropped from the frying pan into the fire - literally.

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is

The enemy committing atrocities is a good thing? :confused:

Wrong direction folks. It's good to remember what sort of adversary we are fighting. One that doesn't hesitate or discriminate in the killing of combatants or non-combatants is clearly worth eradicating.

But my real question is why isn't this rescue the lead? Why is it buried in the 11th paragraph, while a dog-bites-man story is the headline?

Wrong direction folks. It's good to remember what sort of adversary we are fighting. One that doesn't hesitate or discriminate in the killing of combatants or non-combatants is clearly worth eradicating.

Sure. You DID create them, after all.

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.


They're worrying about what they're aiming at?

They're leaving?

They've agreed when they get home they'll 'deal' with the ones who sent them there?

Wrong direction folks. It's good to remember what sort of adversary we are fighting. One that doesn't hesitate or discriminate in the killing of combatants or non-combatants is clearly worth eradicating.

Fear. Pure, terrormongering, hiding-under-the-bedspread-and-wetting yourself fear. All of this silly little hype about Al Quaeda is so self-defeating, and exactly what they want. This is another case where taking a deep breath, and rationally understanding exactly what we are or are not fighting is vastly preferrable to running around and screaming, "Look at our evil foe!!!111"

Don't play into their hands and give them more attention. That is exactly what they want. When you deal with crazies like this, you don't feed their egos by talking about them, you ignore them.

But my real question is why isn't this rescue the lead? Why is it buried in the 11th paragraph, while a dog-bites-man story is the headline?

It's a conspiracy to make our troops fail in der Iraq. :rolleyes:

Because it won't sell papers. Because we don't put deaths in the headlines either at this point, unless they are particularly massive. Because the American people are sick of this war, and more money/hits are gained by talking about something else? Because this is "progress" that should be taken for granted. The fact that you present it as something that shouldn't be tells me just how fucked we are in Iraq.

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?

Is reporting deaths of US soldiers 'bias' now? It seems then you would prefer all negative incidents coming from such situations to be thoroughly censored.

Even if you don't want to admit it, the NYTimes is one of the best news sources in the US.

The others would be The Wall Street Journal and NPR.

I also like the Financial Times and the Economist.



Aside from the news stories, the US really fucked up on the whole "lets free Iraq" thing. Saddam, as bad as he was, was really the only person in the region that kept Iraq as a relatively stable nation. The US invaded and removed the government before it could implement a replacement government and some form of indigenous nation guard to protect the region (although that is not really possible anyway.)

Because the US destabilized the region, it is now more susceptible to an insurgency and given that Iraq has a highly polarized populace, this sort of thing was just waiting to happen after Saddam was removed.

Saddam did need to be removed but there should have been more planning and a better means of execution.

Sorry, I find it hard to feel sympathy.


I'll bet if we tortured the terrorists, you could scrounge-up some sypathy....

I'll bet if we tortured the terrorists, you could scrounge-up some sypathy....

What do you mean, "if" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Prisoner_complaints_and_alleged_torture)?

Didn't see any mainstream media coverage of the al-Qaeda torture manual, either, nor photos of the torture chambers on mainstream media.

Can't link to them here, because it would violate the terms of service.

Pretty gross stuff - but I guess photos of Americans making naked homoerotic human pyramids plays better on the news.

Didn't see any mainstream media coverage of the al-Qaeda torture manual, either, nor photos of the torture chambers on mainstream media.

Can't link to them here, because it would violate the terms of service.

Pretty gross stuff - but I guess photos of Americans making naked homoerotic human pyramids plays better on the news.

Blame the US media. Stuff like you're suggesting was shown on channels such as Al-Arabia, or Al-Jazeera.

Unless, the US soldiers become stupid enough to document their torture techniques, homoerotic pyramids is the most we'll see.

Considering you invaded for all the wrong reasons and he was the only thing keeping the country from becoming a civil war-ravaged wasteland;

If we ran Iraq like Saddam did, you would certainly be upset...

considering you did it against the will of the entire world;

The EU is not the entire world.

considering your only interest was oil (otherwise you'd be in other countries "for democracy");

Oil? What exactly do you mean? The U.S. hasn't taken a single-drop of oil outta there they didn't pay-for, so I fail to see how "oil" means anything.

considering the rationale changed more than Michael Jackson's face over the years;

There obviously isn't a rationale anymore, unfortunatly...:(

considering you squandered the good will of the world;

What-in-the-hell does THAT mean?

considering this caused MANY more deaths that it would have ever prevented;

It COULD have prevented deaths if Bush didn't manage it, but because he does, I can concede here sadly, although I find it funny that you fail to count the people Saddam would have put through the wood-chippers by-now.

considering this rallied terrorists against you...

Rallied? They already were against us. Al Qaeda kills 3000 innocents, and now now they torture our troops, and you say we prokoved them because we didn't appreciate the original 3000 killed?

YES!

I'w wating to see how-pissed you get if we govern like Saddam would.

What do you mean, "if" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Prisoner_complaints_and_alleged_torture)?

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

Hmmm. Anyway I doubt it compares to iron, whips, chains, and drills.

Blame the US media. Stuff like you're suggesting was shown on channels such as Al-Arabia, or Al-Jazeera.

Unless, the US soldiers become stupid enough to document their torture techniques, homoerotic pyramids is the most we'll see.

The way the US government and military leaks, I think we've seen everything.

Are you of the naive belief that somehow, the modern US can keep a secret?

This isn't the 1960s, where we were able to keep the true nature of launched satellites and other plots a secret.

Now, US news organizations commonly run stories with excerpts from top secret documents.

Hmmm. Anyway I doubt it compares to iron, whips, chains, and drills.

Ah, so now we're just argueing the methods of torture?

The way the US government and military leaks, I think we've seen everything.

Are you of the naive belief that somehow, the modern US can keep a secret?

This isn't the 1960s, where we were able to keep the true nature of launched satellites and other plots a secret.

Now, US news organizations commonly run stories with excerpts from top secret documents.

So the press see all of the top secret documents?

The way the US government and military leaks, I think we've seen everything.

Are you of the naive belief that somehow, the modern US can keep a secret?



Erm, how long did it take for something like Haditha to come forward? We may only see some awful things coming out that have happened recently in the future. With the level of blanket silence surrounding G. Bay, I'm not surprised we haven't heard much apart from prisoners testimony after they were released.

I'm not talking about indefinetly - sooner or later, it comes out but the issue is whether or not mainstream US media will bother picking it up.

Pretty gross stuff - but I guess photos of Americans making naked homoerotic human pyramids plays better on the news.

No. The Abu Ghraib torture scandal was not given more coverage over Al-Qaida torture in Iraq because of some percieved "liberal" or "anti-american" bias.

It was given so much coverage, and was treated with such disgust because America had a moral high ground over many other more despotic nations up until then. Americans often like to brag that thier country is the most free, the most wealthy, the most moral country. That the USA is a shining beacon that other nations should follow.

That was one of the reasons Pro War advocates liked to spout, yes? That Saddam tortured Iraqi's in Abu Ghraib Prison, using his sick twisted secret police?

Surely the revelation that this same torture, in the same building no less, was being practised by American soldiers, indirectly sanctioned by their officers, is much more newsworthy and important than repeating the known fact that Al-Qaida are a terrorist group with scrupulous morals?

We already knew that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are torturers. That's a freaking no brainer!

But American soldiers...?


And now American's are practising officially sanctioned torture on men, many of whom cannot even be proven to have any links to any terrorist group at all, in Guantanamo Bay.

Erm, how long did it take for something like Haditha to come forward? We may only see some awful things coming out that have happened recently in the future. With the level of blanket silence surrounding G. Bay, I'm not surprised we haven't heard much apart from prisoners testimony after they were released.

I'm not talking about indefinetly - sooner or later, it comes out but the issue is whether or not mainstream US media will bother picking it up.

I've looked at the testimony for the Haditha case.

I'm not sure you're going to be able to get a conviction - clearing rooms by throwing grenades into them without warning and then charging in and shooting everything in sight seems to be part of the rules of engagement.

I've looked at the testimony for the Haditha case.

I'm not sure you're going to be able to get a conviction - clearing rooms by throwing grenades into them without warning and then charging in and shooting everything in sight seems to be part of the rules of engagement.

Lawyer: "Did you kill those innocent civilians on purpose?"

Soldier: *clears throat - leans into mic* No.

Lawyer: "Oh..... well. Erm, ok. See, he said it himself - he's not guilty by his own testimony and the testimony of the others on trial."

I'll wait until the testimony of the locals involved who survived is taken into account and a full and open inquiry happens.

Edit: Sorry, this thread isn't about Haditha or it's testimony. I'm sure NSG will deal with that if and when it is finished. Nevermind.

Lawyer: "Did you kill those innocent civilians on purpose?"

Soldier: *clears throat - leans into mic* No.

Lawyer: "Oh..... well. Erm, ok. See, he said it himself - he's not guilty by his own testimony and the testimony of the others on trial."

I'll wait until the testimony of the locals involved who survived is taken into account and a full and open inquiry happens.

The testimony is more along the lines of:

Did you throw a grenade into a room without looking, and without warning?

Yes, I did.

Did the rules of engagement permit this?

Yes.

*looks at rules of engagement*

Hmmm. It appears that you are correct.

Pretty gross stuff - but I guess photos of Americans making naked homoerotic human pyramids plays better on the news.

..not forgetting we don't have the photographs of the beatings, mock executions and sodomy by lightstick, brush-handle and thug also carried out and sanctioned by the US.

Funny enough, I don't recall Gonzalez's memo mentioning naked pyramids, just the extent to which beatings could be administered.....

The testimony is more along the lines of:

Did you throw a grenade into a room without looking, and without warning?

Yes, I did.

Did the rules of engagement permit this?

Yes.

*looks at rules of engagement*

Hmmm. It appears that you are correct.

US Rules of Engagment according to the 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual:

Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.

Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.

Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.

Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.

Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.


So since they cleared the rooms with grenades without prior knowledge that there were aggressive armed combatants in those rooms, Haditha seems to violate the ROE.

..not forgetting we don't have the photographs of the beatings, mock executions and sodomy by lightstick, brush-handle and thug also carried out and sanctioned by the US.

Funny enough, I don't recall Gonzalez's memo mentioning naked pyramids, just the extent to which beatings could be administered.....

Funny, I don't see you criticizing al-Qaeda for their manual, actual torture chamber, and 40 some-odd victims who testified to their torture.

Funny, I don't see you criticizing al-Qaeda for their manual, actual torture chamber, and 40 some-odd victims who testified to their torture.

"actual torture chamber"? Are you implying that the US does not actually torture?

"actual torture chamber"? Are you implying that the US does not actually torture?

No, he's saying torture is only wrong when it isn't us doing it, and when it is us doing it, it isn't torture.

No, he's saying torture is only wrong when it isn't us doing it, and when it is us doing it, it isn't torture.

Thank you. I must have been having a stupid fit.

I'll bet if we tortured the terrorists, you could scrounge-up some sypathy....

Oh but we all know THAT doesn't happen. Just like raping Iraqi women and killing their families doesn't.

Why is it we don't hear about Allied atrocities? Because they didn't happen?

And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you...

As it is, you stumbled into a mess, created an even bigger mess out of it, and are now complaining about getting dirty boots. Sorry, I find it hard to feel sympathy.

I do pity the population of Iraq, however, being dropped from the frying pan into the fire - literally.

I expected better from you Cabra... you are supposedly this happy bubbly and caring person but you make it sound like you have not the slightest bit of remorse for the soldiers who are dying there in the name of Gee Dub and those equally pitiable Iraqi people.

The only ones to blame here are in government, I feel bad for all those soldiers stuck there. From the statement you made you aren't one bit sorry that there are thousands of young men and women who thought they could be better people, or live a better life, if they joined the armed services. Do you think that 98% of those people are there because they want to? The vast majority are there against thier own will, but since they joined the military there is nothing they can do about it but what they are told, they cover thier heads and hope that they come out of this alive. Many others are there because they want to do something to make the world better, and they see this as thier chance however small a part they play.

The only ones who don't deserve our remorse are the minority who are there just so they can kill someone and get away with it, the ones that carry out this torture against the 'enemy'; those ones are as bad as the 'enemy' and in a way, they still get soem pitty from me because of thier twisted world views and outlook on life.

Seriously Cabra, thats not how you usually some off as at all.

Everyone else needs to consider that too, and this: The issue here is why would the NY Times put a story like that in the bottom paragraph of a report when things like that deserve whole stories of thier own. There are people doing good things in Iraq and all over the world, the discussion is about why don't they get recognized; but you all want to be petty and argue a point that is practically null in this discussion.

Wrong direction folks. It's good to remember what sort of adversary we are fighting. One that doesn't hesitate or discriminate in the killing of combatants or non-combatants is clearly worth eradicating.

But my real question is why isn't this rescue the lead? Why is it buried in the 11th paragraph, while a dog-bites-man story is the headline?

Because the New York times would rather paint a dire picture of the military, lets not faffle around the point you're trying to get at here.

I expected better from you Cabra... you are supposedly this happy bubbly and caring person but you make it sound like you have not the slightest bit of remorse for the soldiers who are dying there in the name of Gee Dub and those equally pitiable Iraqi people.
I expect better from US soldiers.

The only ones to blame here are in government,
That and those soldiers who commit crimes on their tours.

I feel bad for all those soldiers stuck there.
It's their job - if they didn't like it, they shouldn't have joined.

From the statement you made you aren't one bit sorry that there are thousands of young men and women who thought they could be better people, or live a better life, if they joined the armed services.
They're trained killers for fucks sake.

Do you think that 98% of those people are there because they want to?
Yes. They wanted to join the military - no one press ganged them into it. Guess what militaries do? They go to war. No one joins the US military for an easy life.

Many others are there because they want to do something to make the world better, and they see this as thier chance however small a part they play.
Join Amnesty International, Medicins Sans Frontiers, the International Red Cross et al if you want to make the world better - don't join an army.

The only ones who don't deserve our remorse are the minority who are there just so they can kill someone and get away with it, the ones that carry out this torture against the 'enemy'; those ones are as bad as the 'enemy' and in a way, they still get soem pitty from me because of thier twisted world views and outlook on life.
I pity them because they're stuck in a shithole, then I remember the reasons they are there and no one forced them to join the military. Free will and all.

Seriously Cabra, thats not how you usually some off as at all. The woman's entitled to her opinion.

Everyone else needs to consider that too, and this: The issue here is why would the NY Times put a story like that in the bottom paragraph of a report when things like that deserve whole stories of thier own. There are people doing good things in Iraq and all over the world, the discussion is about why don't they get recognized; but you all want to be petty and argue a point that is practically null in this discussion.
A lot of people do good things everyday around the world and they don't get recognised for it - suck it up.

They're trained killers for fucks sake.


So?


Yes. They wanted to join the military - no one press ganged them into it. Guess what militaries do? They go to war. No one joins the US military for an easy life.


But they didn't know that the war would be like this.


Join Amnesty International, Medicins Sans Frontiers, the International Red Cross et al if you want to make the world better - don't join an army.


Because militaries don't make any difference :rolleyes:


I pity them because they're stuck in a shithole, then I remember the reasons they are there and no one forced them to join the military. Free will and all.


But they were forced to fight in the Iraq war.

What I don't understand is why this prison was a AQ prison given they kill their prisoners soon after capture...

So?
So I don't feel sorry for trained killers. That's normal.


But they didn't know that the war would be like this.
Awww.

Because militaries don't make any difference :rolleyes:
You can roll your pretty eyes all you want deary, my point stands. You want to help your fellow man, and help the world? The military ain't the first stop on your journey.

But they were forced to fight in the Iraq war.
Awww. Soldiers doing the job they're getting paid to do. My heart... bleeds.

*Der scissors!*

1. You are missing the whole point to this thread.

2. I long gave up having expectations of most people, all they do is disapoint

3. I didn't say Cabra West could not have an opinion, I said that does not sound like something she would usually say.

4. You are still missing the whole point of this thread

5. I blame the government for giving those dispicable people the oppurtunity, even the PRIVELAGE of doing those things.

6. Soldiers are trained for a variety of jobs, not just killing.

7. You are missing the whole point to this thread.

8. Some people feel they have no other choice to make things better than join up.

9. Many people are pressured or even forced to join the armed forces.

10. In case you are stil missing it: The point of this whole thread is: Why do stories like the one in the example only get one line in a larger story about how bad people are when they deserve a story in themselves. Not how, not where, not if, but why.

I seriously hate to disapoint all you who thought this was another hate on the USA thread. There are plenty of them, go rail angrily on them.

So I don't feel sorry for trained killers. That's normal.


Awww, your scared of the word "killers".


Awww.


No rebuttle then.


You can roll your pretty eyes all you want deary, my point stands. You want to help your fellow man, and help the world? The military ain't the first stop on your journey.


But you can't just dismiss the armies significance, which has been far far far more important then any of the organizations you have mentioned.


Awww. Soldiers doing the job they're getting paid to do. My heart... bleeds.

So you're not allowed to care if someones job is hell, 'cause it's their job. Gotcha.

10. In case you are stil missing it: The point of this whole thread is: Why do stories like the one in the example only get one line in a larger story about how bad people are when they deserve a story in themselves. Not how, not where, not if, but why.

I seriously hate to disapoint all you who thought this was another hate on the USA thread. There are plenty of them, go rail angrily on them.

Oh no no. I get the thread. Believe me, I do.

You want to know why stories like hospitals being built and school kids getting to class gets one line?

Because when you have car bombs killings dozens, if not hundreds every single day - a police force rampant with secret death squads, ethnic and religious murders on a huge scale, consistent power and water supply failures all coupled with the annhilation of the Iraqi economy..... all that tends to be more important in the grand scheme of things.

But by all means, focus on the few 'silver linings' while the rest of the world sees the morass become worse and worse.

Awww, your scared of the word "killers".
You've lost me.

No rebuttle then.
They didn't know war would be like this. What? They thought it would be a summer camp? Cop on. Anyone who joins the military knows what the potential consequences are - and I'm speaking as someone from 4 generations of military service.

But you can't just dismiss the armies significance, which has been far far far more important then any of the organizations you have mentioned.
Dismiss? I didn't dismiss anything. I pointedly said you don't make the military your first point of call if you truely want to help your fellow man now do you.

So you're not allowed to care if someones job is hell, 'cause it's their job. Gotcha.
Allowed? Who's talking about 'allowed'? They deserve my sympathy as much as anyone else who works for a living - they chose their career, for good or for worse.

Oh no no. I get the thread. Believe me, I do.

You want to know why stories like hospitals being built and school kids getting to class gets one line?

Because when you have car bombs killings dozens, if not hundreds every single day - a police force rampant with secret death squads, ethnic and religious murders on a huge scale, consistent power and water supply failures all coupled with the annhilation of the Iraqi economy..... all that tends to be more important in the grand scheme of things.

But by all means, focus on the few 'silver linings' while the rest of the world sees the morass become worse and worse.

I understand you now! One of those moody, depressing "Why bother looking for the silver lineing when I might get struck by lightning?" types.

The most important point I have been trying to make is this is not the place to rail about how bad people are. This is not the place to be hating on people. If you feel you must do nothing but be hateful go find a better place to do it.

I understand you now! One of those moody, depressing "Why bother looking for the silver lineing when I might get struck by lightning?" types.

The most important point I have been trying to make is this is not the place to rail about how bad people are. This is not the place to be hating on people. If you feel you must do nothing but be hateful go find a better place to do it.

Ok, I'll leave. Sorry for pointing out what life is like.

So?
But they didn't know that the war would be like this.


Let's here it for the poor Americans, who've lost approximately half a percentile of the Iraqi total (.57 taking Iraqi dead at 600,000 and 3,400 as the American)......


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....

What do reckon they thought the war would be like? just maybe escorting a few guys in shades as they advised the death squads, like back in the 80's...?

I don't see how anyone can say that the New York Times is not un-American after viewing that article. They are conspiring to deceive the public by refusing to show information that would conflict their flawed viewpoint that Iraq is an unmitigated mistake and in a state of grotesque violence. The New York Times is engaging in a diluted version of what the Nazis and Goebbels did: swaying public opinion towards their stance via dishonest, mendacious and perfidious means.

You've lost me.


Theres no other reason why being a trained killer (which is only one part of the military) is inherently bad, other then they kill. What do you expect? How can you have an army that's not prepared to kill people.


They didn't know war would be like this. What? They thought it would be a summer camp? Cop on. Anyone who joins the military knows what the potential consequences are - and I'm speaking as someone from 4 generations of military service.


I don't mean the conditions, i mean the nature of the war (i.e. that it was wrong and unjustified etc.. which, correct me if i'm wrong, you seem to be blaming the soldiers for.


Dismiss? I didn't dismiss anything. I pointedly said you don't make the military your first point of call if you truely want to help your fellow man now do you.


If you're not using it to try and make soldiers undeserving of sympathy whats your point?


Allowed? Who's talking about 'allowed'? They deserve my sympathy as much as anyone else who works for a living - they chose their career, for good or for worse.

Why does that mean that they deserve no more sympathy then anyone else?

I don't see how anyone can say that the New York Times is not un-American after viewing that article. They are conspiring to deceive the public by refusing to show information that would conflict their flawed viewpoint that Iraq is an unmitigated mistake and in a state of grotesque violence. The New York Times is engaging in a diluted version of what the Nazis and Goebbels did: swaying public opinion towards their stance via dishonest, mendacious and perfidious means.
Truth hurts, eh.

Truth hurts, eh.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand that comment. Are you talking about the fact that US troops are engaged in wonderful and glorious acts in Iraq? That itself is welcome news and doesn't "hurt," but I would say that the fraudulent devices the New York Times employs to bury that bit of information are "painful."

Edit: ah, I now see that you bolded a portion of my post out of context. The above no longer holds and I understand your trickery.

Let's here it for the poor Americans, who've lost approximately half a percentile of the Iraqi total (.57 taking Iraqi dead at 600,000 and 3,400 as the American)......


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....

What do reckon they thought the war would be like? just maybe escorting a few guys in shades as they advised the death squads, like back in the 80's...?

I don't care if not a single American soldier died, it's just irritating that peoples misunderstanding of realism will lead them to think it means that they shouldn't care about american soldiers as well.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand that comment. Are you talking about the fact that US troops are engaged in wonderful and glorious acts in Iraq? That itself is welcome news and doesn't "hurt," but I would say that the fraudulent devices the New York Times employs to bury that bit of information are "painful."
No, the truth that Iraq is an unmitigated mistake and in a state of grotesque violence, of course.

The point of this whole thread is: Why do stories like the one in the example only get one line in a larger story about how bad people are when they deserve a story in themselves. Not how, not where, not if, but why.

Because the silver lining is unimportant. Soldiers may have rescued prisoners in Iraq, but that doesn't change a damn thing when it comes to the chaos and violence that happen there everyday. The terrorists that held the prisoners still operate in the country, dozens of other insurgent groups still launch attacks on civilians and soldiers alike, and people still die. The environment that allowed 42 people to be held prisoner by insurgents is still in place and it seems that there is no way to change that.

Silver lining is that bit of fluff people like to see to remind themselves that things aren't all bad, but they are distractions from grim reality, at best.

Everyone else needs to consider that too, and this: The issue here is why would the NY Times put a story like that in the bottom paragraph of a report when things like that deserve whole stories of thier own. There are people doing good things in Iraq and all over the world, the discussion is about why don't they get recognized; but you all want to be petty and argue a point that is practically null in this discussion.


The most important point I have been trying to make is this is not the place to rail about how bad people are. This is not the place to be hating on people. If you feel you must do nothing but be hateful go find a better place to do it.

Because I don't feel like repeating myself.

Because the silver lining is unimportant. Soldiers may have rescued prisoners in Iraq, but that doesn't change a damn thing when it comes to the chaos and violence that happen there everyday. The terrorists that held the prisoners still operate in the country, dozens of other insurgent groups still launch attacks on civilians and soldiers alike, and people still die. The environment that allowed 42 people to be held prisoner by insurgents is still in place and it seems that there is no way to change that.

Silver lining is that bit of fluff people like to see to remind themselves that things aren't all bad, but they are distractions from grim reality, at best.

I don't think that was his intention. I think he intended to show the people who apparently know the 'real' truth about the US millitary that not all soldiers are evil biggoted exploiters.

No, the truth that Iraq is an unmitigated mistake and in a state of grotesque violence, of course.

Actually, that is a blatant lie, given that polls reveal that the majority of Iraqis believe that they are better off now (despite the small degree of violence) than they were under Saddam.

Actually, that is a blatant lie, given that polls reveal that the majority of Iraqis believe that they are better off now (despite the small degree of violence) than they were under Saddam.
Got proof of that?

Because the silver lining is unimportant. Soldiers may have rescued prisoners in Iraq, but that doesn't change a damn thing when it comes to the chaos and violence that happen there everyday. The terrorists that held the prisoners still operate in the country, dozens of other insurgent groups still launch attacks on civilians and soldiers alike, and people still die. The environment that allowed 42 people to be held prisoner by insurgents is still in place and it seems that there is no way to change that.

Silver lining is that bit of fluff people like to see to remind themselves that things aren't all bad, but they are distractions from grim reality, at best.
You're wrong. The fact that little victories happen every day means that there is progress being made in restoring order to the country. Maybe not that fast, but it's still progress. No great sweeping peace is ever going to break out in Iraq, but a negotiated peace is going to depend greatly on our continued presence and our continued ability to win small victories like these.

Because the silver lining is unimportant. Soldiers may have rescued prisoners in Iraq, but that doesn't change a damn thing when it comes to the chaos and violence that happen there everyday. The terrorists that held the prisoners still operate in the country, dozens of other insurgent groups still launch attacks on civilians and soldiers alike, and people still die. The environment that allowed 42 people to be held prisoner by insurgents is still in place and it seems that there is no way to change that.

Silver lining is that bit of fluff people like to see to remind themselves that things aren't all bad, but they are distractions from grim reality, at best.

And nobody will change a thing by sitting back and complaining about the grim reality. The only ones doing shit to change that situation are getting a bad reputation. The US did in fact create this, and at least there are those that are trying to clean up the mess. This situation is only going to get cleaned up through use of force, the Media wants it to look like all they are doing is sitting there with thumbs up thier asses and making things worse. it is important to know that progress is being made, it is important to know that there is at least a snowball's chance that someone will do something about it. This pointless bickering is making me sick.

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is, as well as how our soldiers continue to act bravely. One wonders how a story favorable to our side made it into the Times...

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?

hmm, war is brutal, as many of the neo-cons on here say when children are killed by US troops, so I guess it works on both sides.

You're wrong. The fact that little victories happen every day means that there is progress being made in restoring order to the country. Maybe not that fast, but it's still progress. No great sweeping peace is ever going to break out in Iraq, but a negotiated peace is going to depend greatly on our continued presence and our continued ability to win small victories like these.

Progress in this kind of situation relies on creating and maintaining order. How did this rescue achieve that? We took 42 men from their captors, but there is no mention of whether their captors are out of the picture or still operating. We know that the men will be cared for, but once they've recovered, will they be safe from capture again?

Small victories like this sound good, but I still wonder what kind of state a country is in when over forty people can be held by a terror organization until rescued as part of a large-scale security effort. Once this 3,000 man security effort is over, I have to wonder if this won't happen again, and it seems far too likely that it will.

You're wrong. The fact that little victories happen every day means that there is progress being made in restoring order to the country. Maybe not that fast, but it's still progress. No great sweeping peace is ever going to break out in Iraq, but a negotiated peace is going to depend greatly on our continued presence and our continued ability to win small victories like these.

Little victories, but major setbacks by having hundreds killed by car bombs everyday..So yes, you take one step forward, but get pushed 10 steps back.

Considering you invaded for all the wrong reasons and he was the only thing keeping the country from becoming a civil war-ravaged wasteland

Yes, because it was so much better letting a madman ravage the country all on his own. Read about the thousands, even hundreds of thousands of his own people he murdered. Read about what human rights were really like in that country when he was in power.

You're right, we should have just let him carry on...and then the world would blame the US for not stepping in and doing something about him.

Saddam was neither a hero nor a good leader. Removing him from power cannot be considered a bad thing. Yes, mistakes were made...some of them truly horrific. But Saddam was a mad dog who needed to be put down, for the sake of his country.

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is, as well as how our soldiers continue to act bravely. One wonders how a story favorable to our side made it into the Times...

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?

Why do I bother?

Got proof of that?

As a matter of fact, I do. And let this be a message for all those self-deluding liberals who think that Iraq has been a disaster for the US and for the Iraqis: wake up! The only catastrophe would be withdrawing!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Why do I bother?

You don't. But at least you didn't "quote for lolz".

Edit: Yay! 3k posts!

You don't. But at least you didn't "quote for lolz".

Edit: Yay! 3k posts!


QFlolz!

You don't. But at least you didn't "quote for lolz".

Edit: Yay! 3k posts!

Yeah. I guess.

QFlolz!

Don't steal my lines. It really pisses me off. Plus, you're not even saying it right.

Yeah. I guess.



Don't steal my lines. It really pisses me off. Plus, you're not even saying it right.

and it really pisses everyone off when you say it. I am sure that your entire post count is made up of Lols.

As a matter of fact, I do. And let this be a message for all those self-deluding liberals who think that Iraq has been a disaster for the US and for the Iraqis: wake up! The only catastrophe would be withdrawing!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
And what does that have to do with a continuing occupation? People might think that life is better, but that doesn't mean that they think that our forces should be there.

And nobody will change a thing by sitting back and complaining about the grim reality. The only ones doing shit to change that situation are getting a bad reputation. The US did in fact create this, and at least there are those that are trying to clean up the mess. This situation is only going to get cleaned up through use of force, the Media wants it to look like all they are doing is sitting there with thumbs up thier asses and making things worse. it is important to know that progress is being made, it is important to know that there is at least a snowball's chance that someone will do something about it. This pointless bickering is making me sick.

If you'll remember, this whole debate is occurring because the Times reported something the soldiers did right. There isn't an anti-soldier agenda in the media, it's a problem of reporting the situation as it is. As it is, we lost two soldiers yesterday and the situation in Iraq doesn't show signs of improving. As it is, forty-two prisoners were rescued as part of a security effort, but if we don't know who imprisoned them or what will happen to them after we've taken care of their medical needs, they're a footnote to a situation that doesn't even guarantee them safety after they've been rescued.

These feel-good stories are only a small part of the larger reality of a horrible situation. It's a depressing perspective, but it is closer to the reality of the situation than an article that would focus only on the rescue or on the things we've done right.

If you'll remember, this whole debate is occurring because the Times reported something the soldiers did right. There isn't an anti-soldier agenda in the media, it's a problem of reporting the situation as it is. As it is, we lost two soldiers yesterday and the situation in Iraq doesn't show signs of improving. As it is, forty-two prisoners were rescued as part of a security effort, but if we don't know who imprisoned them or what will happen to them after we've taken care of their medical needs, they're a footnote to a situation that doesn't even guarantee them safety after they've been rescued.

These feel-good stories are only a small part of the larger reality of a horrible situation. It's a depressing perspective, but it is closer to the reality of the situation than an article that would focus only on the rescue or on the things we've done right.
This is part of the problem with the half-assed reporting or editing that we get from the major outlets. We don't know what happened to the captors. We should. They were probably killed, but we don't know that.

And what does that have to do with a continuing occupation? People might think that life is better, but that doesn't mean that they think that our forces should be there.

I love the way you shift your tactics. First, you claim that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster; that is disproved by the above poll, showing that Iraqis believe that they are better off now than they were under Saddam. You nonetheless proceed to challenge that statement; I then cite the study which arrived at that result.

Now, you begin acting as if that was never the point all along and ask me what that has to do with the continuing occupation. Bravo! Way to pretend that you didn't start this whole thing!

Now, onto your current assertion that they don't think our forces should be there. In reality, only 35% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within 6 months.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php

You forgot the link, by the way:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is, as well as how our soldiers continue to act bravely. One wonders how a story favorable to our side made it into the Times...

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?
Nope, not at all actually.

Is it really surprising to you that "Two of our locals / nationals are dead" beats "42 foreigners rescued"? Local aspects always wins out. If it is a surprise, you really ought to start reading more newspapers. It's not about bias, it's about sales and interest.
If you'll remember, this whole debate is occurring because the Times reported something the soldiers did right. There isn't an anti-soldier agenda in the media, it's a problem of reporting the situation as it is. As it is, we lost two soldiers yesterday and the situation in Iraq doesn't show signs of improving. As it is, forty-two prisoners were rescued as part of a security effort, but if we don't know who imprisoned them or what will happen to them after we've taken care of their medical needs, they're a footnote to a situation that doesn't even guarantee them safety after they've been rescued.

These feel-good stories are only a small part of the larger reality of a horrible situation. It's a depressing perspective, but it is closer to the reality of the situation than an article that would focus only on the rescue or on the things we've done right.
Indeed. It's not even a "feel-good" story tough, it's just a part of a summary of what happened in Iraq over the weekend.
This is part of the problem with the half-assed reporting or editing that we get from the major outlets. We don't know what happened to the captors. We should. They were probably killed, but we don't know that.
Had it been an article about that story, you would be right. It wasn't, so you're not.

I love the way you shift your tactics. First, you claim that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster; that is disproved by the above poll, showing that Iraqis believe that they are better off now than they were under Saddam. You nonetheless proceed to challenge that statement; I then cite the study which arrived at that result.
I'm not shifting my tactics. You proved your poll, and that's all I wanted. A poll about how people fell before and after does not prove that it hasn't been a disaster, though. Have we met the objective we had when we went in? No. Is the level of violence falling? No. (http://www.iflipflop.com/violence_in_iraq.jpg) Is the amount of people being killed rising? Yes. (http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf)

This war has been a disaster for the image and opinion of the USA and the UK, it has helped terrorism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5383614.stm), and four years on, it's still no closer to finishing as it was four years ago.

Now, you begin acting as if that was never the point all along and ask me what that has to do with the continuing occupation. Bravo! Way to pretend that you didn't start this whole thing!
No, I asked for a source. That's all. I didn't 'start' anything. It wasn't an attempt of a rebuttal. It's a study I hadn't seen because I don't read the Times and haven't been shown it. Simple as.

Now, onto your current assertion that they don't think our forces should be there. In reality, only 35% of Iraqis want the US to withdraw within 6 months.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php
Yet, an increasing number of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42709000/gif/_42709645_q27_203x201.gif

And they think things are getting worse, not better:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42709000/gif/_42709583_q2_7_416x273.gif

And the amount of people who want our forces to leave is rising (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf). Not good news, is it?

And stilll... everyone is missing the point of the thread. Le sigh.

Don't worry. There are a couple of of good things happening in Iraq now and then. There just isn't enough to outweigh the daily (hourly) bad. In most cases, I think US readers are far more concerned about the status of their family members serving in teh military and that's what the editors choose to focus on reporting so as to sell newspapers. This liberal media crap is so old. How many times does it need to be proven that these large media corporatations are driven primarily by what will bring them more sales? It shouldn't even need to be said once, let alone ad nauseum.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rmc0060l.jpg

Saddam was a mad dog who needed to be put down, for the sake of his country.

As soon as he stopped being useful to the US, that put him there, right? There are worse dictatorships the US ALLIES itself with! There are worse ones the US helped SET UP. So, no, you don't get to say "for the sake of the country", because, no, you don't give a crap about the "sake of the country". Bush shouted war and wanted power because of a grudge. You went along because Bush tricked you into it. For the sake of the country, it ain't.

And stilll... everyone is missing the point of the thread. Le sigh.

You sure about that?

You do realize that this place sounds basically like Abu Gharib and Gitmo?

and it really pisses everyone off when you say it. I am sure that your entire post count is made up of Lols.

Dude, chill out. And I do make serious posts.

Dude, chill out. And I do make serious posts.

Lolz.

Lolz.

I'll see your lolz and raise a double lolz.

I do find ONE silver lining in Iraq.
Whenever I meet someone from Iraqi Kurdistan online.

That's the only Iraq sucess story that I can find, the Kurds are more or less free. (Until Turkey decides to invade that is)

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is, as well as how our soldiers continue to act bravely. One wonders how a story favorable to our side made it into the Times...

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?

abu gharaib?
Guantanamo Bay?

I'll see your lolz and raise a double lolz.

lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz.....there, thats six...

lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz.....there, thats six...

I see your six lolz and raise you an operatic lolz.

Sing "Lolz" in an operatic way.

I'll bet if we tortured the terrorists, you could scrounge-up some sypathy....

You already torture people. Hells Bells, there've been all manner of posters right here on General who think torturing people is the bee's knees, or try to claim that what you get up to isn't "torture" 'cause in the end, your victims retain their fingers, toes, teeth and earlobes.

If anyone deserves a taste of what you dish out, it's your Imperious Leader and his hench-thingys.

Atypically, the New York Times actually published some good news about the actions of our troops in Iraq.

This is good because it illustrates how cruel and brutal our enemy is, as well as how our soldiers continue to act bravely. One wonders how a story favorable to our side made it into the Times...

Well, don't worry, it was paragraphs 11 to 13 in a titled "Roadside Bombings Kill 2 More G.I.’s in Iraq". One wonders what editorial decisions led to this placement. It couldn't be bias, could it?

From the view of the soldier in Iraq, this shows that they can do some good there.

From the (inter)national view... the US sorta caused all that and no amount of soldiers trained for nation-vs-nation warfare will solve it. The thing about the US army: Great for leveling buildings, but horrible for fighting in between them.

abu gharaib?
Guantanamo Bay?

Not even close, pal.

Not even close, pal.

You're claiming moral high ground on the grounds that you're "not as bad" as them?

I do find ONE silver lining in Iraq.
Whenever I meet someone from Iraqi Kurdistan online.

That's the only Iraq sucess story that I can find, the Kurds are more or less free. (Until Turkey decides to invade that is)

Silver lining indeed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811)

lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz, lolz.....there, thats six...

I fold.

Silver lining indeed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811)

Should be an eye opener indeed for the Islamic apologists liberals, who support Sharia Laws to be implemented in UK in the name of religious freedom and minority rights.

- Marcus, new zealand
Alas for New Zealand...

Alas for New Zealand...

Yeah, that's why you should never read the comments. She wasn't killed by muslims...