NationStates Jolt Archive

It is one thing for the US to be lax with weapons control at home, that's their choice, but it's another thing altogether for this to happen..

190,000 missing AK-47s (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6932710.stm)

3 missing or perhaps 20 even but 190,000? That's enough to arm a nation. Britain doesn't even have 190,000 soldiers.

Madness!

(and yes I do know it's 110,00 AK-47s and 80,000 pistols, but 190K AK-47s sounds better ;) )

110000 AK47's is nothing. In 2001 it came to light that 2.5 Trillion dollars meant for military purposes was somehow missing. Few people remember this since the the news became public on september 10 2001 and thus was overshadowed by the events of the next day.

But I half suspect that if you were to find these 190000 Firearms, you would also discover the whereabouts of the missing money.

I have this landfill-sized treasure box in my backyard I've been meaning to dig up. I don't know who put it there, but I just haven't gotten around to excavating yet.

This unpalatable bias is symptomatic of the infiltration of "objective" broadcasters by liberals. We are awash in articles expounding upon some perceived defect or deficiency in our management of the Iraq war and waves of stories depicting horrendous barbarity are battering our nation. This is but one more instance of media misrepresentation and sensationalism.

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").

For example, consider stories such as these that you won't hear on the news.


A concerned citizen uncovered an arms cache of over 200 weapons, including missiles, and alerted the US army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13206&Itemid=1


As security in Iraq remains below the ideal level, more faithful and patriotic Iraqi recruits are joining the police or army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13204&Itemid=1


Iraq's economy is feverishly expanding at unprecedented rates. In fact, Iraqi GDP doubled from 2004 to 2006, according to the IMF. That equates yearly growth of over 25%!

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9450&Itemid=32


Hundreds of Al-Qaeda members have been captured or killed over the past several months, including dozens of leaders.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12827&Itemid=128


Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information.

So in reality it is the US who are arming the insurgency, through incompetent management. Maybe the US should bomb itself a little as a warning to stop this kind of thing.

To be fair, those weapons are probably organised by the Iraqi army, would probably couldn't organise a bake sale right now.

110000 AK47's is nothing. In 2001 it came to light that 2.5 Trillion dollars meant for military purposes was somehow missing. Few people remember this since the the news became public on september 10 2001 and thus was overshadowed by the events of the next day.

But I half suspect that if you were to find these 190000 Firearms, you would also discover the whereabouts of the missing money.

You're probably right. But even if you put the price of an AK47 at such a rediculous level as 30.000 dollars it would only reach the level of 5.700.000.000 dollars. Where did the rest of the money go???:confused::rolleyes:

This unpalatable bias is symptomatic of the infiltration of "objective" broadcasters by liberals. We are awash in articles expounding upon some perceived defect or deficiency in our management of the Iraq war and waves of stories depicting horrendous barbarity are battering our nation. This is but one more instance of media misrepresentation and sensationalism.

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").

For example, consider stories such as these that you won't hear on the news.


A concerned citizen uncovered an arms cache of over 200 weapons, including missiles, and alerted the US army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13206&Itemid=1


As security in Iraq remains below the ideal level, more faithful and patriotic Iraqi recruits are joining the police or army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13204&Itemid=1


Iraq's economy is feverishly expanding at unprecedented rates. In fact, Iraqi GDP doubled from 2004 to 2006, according to the IMF. That equates yearly growth of over 25%!

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9450&Itemid=32


Hundreds of Al-Qaeda members have been captured or killed over the past several months, including dozens of leaders.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12827&Itemid=128


Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information.

QFT

EDIT: Quoted For Terrorism, of course.

This unpalatable bias is symptomatic of the infiltration of "objective" broadcasters by liberals. We are awash in articles expounding upon some perceived defect or deficiency in our management of the Iraq war and waves of stories depicting horrendous barbarity are battering our nation. This is but one more instance of media misrepresentation and sensationalism.

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").

For example, consider stories such as these that you won't hear on the news.


A concerned citizen uncovered an arms cache of over 200 weapons, including missiles, and alerted the US army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13206&Itemid=1


As security in Iraq remains below the ideal level, more faithful and patriotic Iraqi recruits are joining the police or army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13204&Itemid=1


Iraq's economy is feverishly expanding at unprecedented rates. In fact, Iraqi GDP doubled from 2004 to 2006, according to the IMF. That equates yearly growth of over 25%!

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9450&Itemid=32


Hundreds of Al-Qaeda members have been captured or killed over the past several months, including dozens of leaders.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12827&Itemid=128


Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information.

and yet, 30% is missing. So saying 70% got to the right people a pretty obvious statement GG.

His source was BBC, and they are meant to stay neutral and not put bias into story. And their source... an official US document.

Cant really have to much bias in facts now can you? Especially those that have been proven.

And what the hell does all those stories you linked to have to do with the OP's topic? Nothing thats what. :rolleyes:

...they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time...

...That equates yearly growth of over 25%!...



Shouldn't that be growth of a mere 25%?

His source was BBC, and they are meant to stay neutral and not put bias into story.

And yet, as an internal investigation commissioned by the BBC itself revealed, the corporation maintains a liberal bias. If you want to read the full findings of those who pored over BBC news reports to catalogue this disturbing slant, click on the link below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf

Cant really have to much bias in facts now can you?

Yes, you can, if you selectively report certain facts but omit others. Various mainstream broadcasters neglect to mention the good news arising from Iraq; they concentrate to stifle anything remotely positive emerging from the country. On the other hand, they go after bad news like rabid dogs, mercilessly sinking their teeth into it and refusing to let go. That's bias.

And what the hell does all those stories you linked to have to do with the OP's topic? Nothing thats what. :rolleyes:

They are evidence of news stories which were not reported by the mainstream media because of an overt liberal bias.

This unpalatable bias is symptomatic of the infiltration of "objective" broadcasters by liberals. We are awash in articles expounding upon some perceived defect or deficiency in our management of the Iraq war and waves of stories depicting horrendous barbarity are battering our nation. This is but one more instance of media misrepresentation and sensationalism.
The BBC doesn't have that kind of bias ;)
Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").
Blooooody hell.

You mean only 70% of the weapons given to the supposedly professional military of Iraq have stayed in their hands?

So almost 1/3 of the Iraqi forces can therefore said to be utterly untrustworthy?

Nice.
Consider stories such as these that you won't hear on the news.


*insert massive list here*

Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information.
The 'wealth of crucial and edifying information' in that list is being written by the occupying forces in Iraq.

Incidentally, did you know that in 1942, Ukraine was a land of bread and honey for everyone, from Untermensch to the highest German Officer, and everyone was working together to smash the Bolshevik Menace?

Read it in a Nazi leaflet, so it must be true.

The BBC doesn't have that kind of bias ;)

Did you miss the results of the internal investigation conducted into the murky affairs of the BBC? It brought to light worrying discoveries, including liberal bias across a wide swathe of subjects.

Read it in a Nazi leaflet, so it must be true.

Did you just compare the US to Nazi Germany? How original. No, really, I've never heard that comparison before. What's next -- comparing George Bush to Hitler? That would be completely novel! :rolleyes:

Did you miss the results of the internal investigation conducted into the murky affairs of the BBC? It brought to light worrying discoveries, including liberal bias across a wide swathe of subjects.


Would you care to post a link to some evidence that justifies this statement?

This unpalatable bias is symptomatic of the infiltration of "objective" broadcasters by liberals. We are awash in articles expounding upon some perceived defect or deficiency in our management of the Iraq war and waves of stories depicting horrendous barbarity are battering our nation. This is but one more instance of media misrepresentation and sensationalism.

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").

For example, consider stories such as these that you won't hear on the news.


A concerned citizen uncovered an arms cache of over 200 weapons, including missiles, and alerted the US army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13206&Itemid=1


As security in Iraq remains below the ideal level, more faithful and patriotic Iraqi recruits are joining the police or army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13204&Itemid=1


Iraq's economy is feverishly expanding at unprecedented rates. In fact, Iraqi GDP doubled from 2004 to 2006, according to the IMF. That equates yearly growth of over 25%!

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9450&Itemid=32


Hundreds of Al-Qaeda members have been captured or killed over the past several months, including dozens of leaders.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12827&Itemid=128


Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information.

Hey I didn't know Dubya played NationStates. Do you have any objective viewpoint of your own or does it all come from the White House? You write that "a staggering 70% of the weapons...are fully accounted for". That should be ALL weapons accounted for. There is no excuse for importing and losing 190,000 weapons in someone elses nation. Perhaps you could get a job for the Sudanese and broadcast their complaints that the western press only focus on the 30% of the country that's being starved and oppressed and not on the 70% that isn't. Or for Robert Mugabe and present his complaints that the press focuses on the 90% of Zimbabwe that's fallen apart and don't mention the successes of the 10% that's still functioning.

As for "vile slant", am I to assume that you are one of those people for whom theirs is the only opinion and that all contradictory beliefs are false doctrine. It must be nice living in a black and white world. My world is shades of gray where you are judged by your actions not by your PR.

If GWB were to write in his memoirs that Iraq was a huge mistake, would you accept that or denounce him too?

Did you miss the results of the internal investigation conducted into the murky affairs of the BBC? It brought to light worrying discoveries, including liberal bias across a wide swathe of subjects.
Pfft. Did it balls.
Did you just compare the US to Nazi Germany? How original. No, really, I've never heard that comparison before. What's next -- comparing George Bush to Hitler? That would be completely novel! :rolleyes:
No, not really.

I simply compared one set of war propaganda to another.

Shouldn't that be growth of a mere 25%?

You win the thread.

We journalists tend to use those adjectives as "mere" or "over", or "staggering", or "dissappointing" to give the information the edge we want without changing the information, and thus remaining "true". Forum partials tend to use the same tecnique.

The point is, at least 30 per cent of the weapons are missing, and that is worrisome indeed. More than 60 thousands rifles lost.

60 thousand armed people can indeed wreak havoc anywhere easily. I suggest the US military start to take care of that situation.

A lot of countries have an army of 60 thousand men armed with assault rifles. So, it is insignificant the fact that your lost stash of weapons can arm an entire army?

Typical problem of perspective.

Would you care to post a link to some evidence that justifies this statement?

I already did. Would you care to read my pertinent posts before querying information that was already submitted?

I already did. Would you care to read my pertinent posts before querying information that was already submitted?

I read what you posted - I am asking you to post something that actually backs up what you are saying. The BBC report says the BBC aims at impartiality nothing about liberal bias.

snip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf

snip

Good to see them doing that ... a lot of american news stations could learn a thing or two

I read what you posted - I am asking you to post something that actually backs up what you are saying. The BBC report says the BBC aims at impartiality nothing about liberal bias.

Then you obviously didn't read the entire report due to its length. Perhaps you should read a summary of the report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Then you obviously didn't read the entire report due to its length. Perhaps you should read a summary of the report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Perhaps you should understand the right wing bias across broad swathes of what the Daily Mail says - they were after all fervent supporters of Hitler.

If you are taking Andrew Marr's comment - the sole mention of anything about a liberal bias - that is one persons view and hardly representative of the conclusions of the entire report.

Then you obviously didn't read the entire report due to its length. Perhaps you should read a summary of the report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
Someone using the Daily Mail to 'uncover' liberal bias in the BBC? You may as well use a Pravda report to find out whether Radio Free Europe is biased.

Then you obviously didn't read the entire report due to its length. Perhaps you should read a summary of the report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
...

You're talking about a paper that said 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' here...

Someone using the Daily Mail to 'uncover' liberal bias in the BBC? You may as well use a Pravda report to find out whether Radio Free Europe is biased.

No, you idiot. I already posted a link to the results of an internal BBC investigation which demonstrated its own bias. However, a poster did not have the patience to sift through the entire report, so I posted a summary link. If you can't be bothered to read the entire thing, don't complain that the summaries I posted are "biased."

I come for the story, I stay for the FreedomAndGlory show.

No, you idiot. I already posted a link to the results of an internal BBC investigation which demonstrated its own bias. However, a poster did not have the patience to sift through the entire report, so I posted a summary link. If you can't be bothered to read the entire thing, don't complain that the summaries I posted are "biased."

The summery was not a summery it was an editorial on the subject ... it would have been simpler and more effective to point to a part of the bbc internal report that actually said what you claimed it did

I come for the story, I stay for the FreedomAndGlory show.

The show's over. Even the BBC itself concluded that it had a liberal bias, but the liberal posters on this forum are vehemently denying that fact against all the evidence. I'm not the type of guy who sticks his head in the sand when my ideas are shown to be utterly false; however, some of my opponents seem to be of this puerile mentality. Because of this, there can be no further debate on the point.

The show's over. Even the BBC itself concluded that it had a liberal bias, but the liberal posters on this forum are vehemently denying that fact against all the evidence. I'm not the type of guy who sticks his head in the sand when my ideas are shown to be utterly false; however, some of my opponents seem to be of this puerile mentality. Because of this, there can be no further debate on the point.

Could you do me a favour mate and tell me what definition of liberal you're using in this context?

The show's over. Even the BBC itself concluded that it had a liberal bias, but the liberal posters on this forum are vehemently denying that fact against all the evidence. I'm not the type of guy who sticks his head in the sand when my ideas are shown to be utterly false; however, some of my opponents seem to be of this puerile mentality. Because of this, there can be no further debate on the point.

Note the bold. Evidence that comprises an editorial (a piece of literature that, by definition, is biased one way or another) and a report that, contrary to F&G's statements, does not say "The BBC is biased."

F&G, where does it admit that the BBC is biased? Page number would be nice.
Or where the Mail article says it is a "summary."

Note the bold. Evidence that comprises an editorial (a piece of literature that, by definition, is biased one way or another) and a report that, contrary to F&G's statements, does not say "The BBC is biased."

F&G, where does it admit that the BBC is biased? Page number would be nice.
Or where the Mail article says it is a "summary."

For the love of all that is holy Fleck, why are you bothering to even respond to this waste of bandwith? F&G has all the credibility of dung and should be consigned to the ignore trash heap where it deserves to be.

For the love of all that is holy Fleck, why are you bothering to even respond to this waste of bandwith? F&G has all the credibility of dung and should be consigned to the ignore trash heap where it deserves to be.

"Chickenhawks do more for the war effort than soldiers" for the loss. *nods*

For the love of all that is holy Fleck, why are you bothering to even respond to this waste of bandwith? F&G has all the credibility of dung and should be consigned to the ignore trash heap where it deserves to be.

1. Boredom at work.

2. Boredom at work.

3. Boredom at work.

4. Shits and giggles/For more quotables

5. Did I mention I'm bored? And at work?

Could you do me a favour mate and tell me what definition of liberal you're using in this context?
The American one of 'somewhat left-wing by their standards'

I want one.

Then I would have... Hang on... *Counts on fingers* Two! I would have two AK-47s!

To be fair, those weapons are probably organised by the Iraqi army, would probably couldn't organise a bake sale right now.

huh?

huh?

It makes sense, trust me. (Non sarcastically)

It is one thing for the US to be lax with weapons control at home, that's their choice, but it's another thing altogether for this to happen..

190,000 missing AK-47s (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6932710.stm)

3 missing or perhaps 20 even but 190,000? That's enough to arm a nation. Britain doesn't even have 190,000 soldiers.

Madness!

(and yes I do know it's 110,00 AK-47s and 80,000 pistols, but 190K AK-47s sounds better ;) )

This is Iraq. They're allowed to have 1 rifle per household under the occupation rules. I fail to see the problem.

Furthermore, 80,000 pistols is positively tiny. Consider that Germany has over 10 million small arms of various kinds in private hands.

This is Iraq. They're allowed to have 1 rifle per household under the occupation rules. I fail to see the problem.

I think the problem is the people who were suppose to have them, don't know where they are.

They didn't give them out to households across the country, they lost track of them. That's a boo boo waiting to happen.

Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.

Page 66.

The only instance of the words "liberal bias" in the document. One quote, from one man, one man who has been accused of being biased himself(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr#Politics_and_bias), does not prove anything.

F'n'G fails once again. Nothing to see here.

Page 66.

The only instance of the words "liberal bias" in the document. One quote, from one man, one man who has been accused of being biased himself(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr#Politics_and_bias), does not prove anything.

F'n'G fails once again. Nothing to see here.

Wow good job tracking that down!

Hear be one kitan
http://catmas.com/images/2006/10/adventure-kitten-preview.jpg
It be present u can has

Wow good job tracking that down!

Hear be one kitan
http://catmas.com/images/2006/10/adventure-kitten-preview.jpg
It be present u can has

Fortunately, Adobe's search function works better than Jolt's.

This is Iraq. They're allowed to have 1 rifle per household under the occupation rules. I fail to see the problem.

Furthermore, 80,000 pistols is positively tiny. Consider that Germany has over 10 million small arms of various kinds in private hands.

1 you are not comparing like with like. Germany ISN'T going through a protracted civil war.
2 As pointed out by the Psychotic Mongooses (shouldn't that be mongeese?) it's a question of who has them. They haven't been dished out 1 per household although that would be one way of GUARANTEEING that some get to those individuals hostile to western occupation. They are just missing and a fuck up of that scale deserves explanation. There should be order forms and requisition slips for every single gun or bullet sent out. Randomly distributing weapons in a war zone and then admitting that you don't know who has them is irresponsible and unacceptable.
3 since when was 80,000 pistols a *tiny* amount. *Tiny* is in single figures, like 6.

This unpalatable bias is symptomatic of the infiltration of "objective" broadcasters by liberals. We are awash in articles expounding upon some perceived defect or deficiency in our management of the Iraq war and waves of stories depicting horrendous barbarity are battering our nation. This is but one more instance of media misrepresentation and sensationalism.

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").

For example, consider stories such as these that you won't hear on the news.


A concerned citizen uncovered an arms cache of over 200 weapons, including missiles, and alerted the US army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13206&Itemid=1


As security in Iraq remains below the ideal level, more faithful and patriotic Iraqi recruits are joining the police or army.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13204&Itemid=1


Iraq's economy is feverishly expanding at unprecedented rates. In fact, Iraqi GDP doubled from 2004 to 2006, according to the IMF. That equates yearly growth of over 25%!

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9450&Itemid=32


Hundreds of Al-Qaeda members have been captured or killed over the past several months, including dozens of leaders.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12827&Itemid=128


Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information.


Lets put it this way your looking at the glass half full, which is not bad. However 30% is a ton of weapons. The said there were 190,000 missing. And despite "dozens of terrorists being killed you could arm an entire city or small country's army. So yes 70% are ther but the point is 30% aren't and 100% should be.

Page 66.

The only instance of the words "liberal bias" in the document. One quote, from one man, one man who has been accused of being biased himself(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr#Politics_and_bias), does not prove anything.

F'n'G fails once again. Nothing to see here.

/thread

/thread

If only. I'd actually like to see if F'n'G will get to respond to this before it falls off the first page. Though even if he did concede that he's wrong about the BBC being biased I can see him falling right back on "Well, it's only 30%".

Someone who doesn't have to get up for work in 7ish hours should find out what percentage of that pdf the single use of the phrase "liberal bias" is. As in (2/X)*(100/1)=Y% where X is the number of words in that pdf. So yeah, someone with time to waste should find Y and TG it to F'n'G.

So yeah, someone with time to waste should find Y and TG it to F'n'G.

You expect far to much from us, and I feel it is within my right to steal and hide your calculator. :p

You expect far to much from us, and I feel it is within my right to steal and hide your calculator. :p

I don't expect anything, unless Adobe will tell you the number of words in a pdf.

I don't expect anything, unless Adobe will tell you the number of words in a pdf.
Sadly it doesn't.

I don't expect anything, unless Adobe will tell you the number of words in a pdf.
"liberal bias" was used a grand total of once as stated

There are 38709 words in the document (yes that is the real count)

So the math is pretty simple :)

Maybe you should seek out other sources of data for the situation in Iraq and protest against the vile slant in the mainstream media. If you don't, you shall be missing out on a wealth of crucial and edifying information. Here's some interesting Data I found from some other forum.

Defense Contractor funding per company:
1998:Halliburton Company $285,623,000
2004:Halliburton Company $7,996,793,706

As security in Iraq remains below the ideal level.YEAH.. but we are almost there. we just need a surge.

its all we need.. trust me. :D

The Iraqis are going to need those guns in their homes if they are going to protect themselves from the rise of another tyrant on the Saddam Hussein model.

The Iraqis are going to need those guns in their homes if they are going to protect themselves from the rise of another tyrant on the Saddam Hussein model.

Scenario 1 (unarmed Civilians)
Death Squad moves from house to house killing everyone

Scenario 2 (armed Civilians)
Death Squad moves from house to house killing everyone

The person inside the house can't win. You might have two dozen assault rifles but you can't win because in a siege the besiegers hold the aces. The besieged can't re-fuel, re-supply, repair weapons, sleep, rest, etc. If you were an Iraqi under a new tyrant your best chance of survival would be to visibly support the regime or at the very least appear to be totally passive. Just having that gun could mean your death.

Having a pistol doesn't protect you from the government or the army. The best way to re-stabilise Iraq would have been to remove all of the Iraqis weapons. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun. A rifle doesn't protect you from a car bomb. Gifting an agitated population 190,000 guns will not make the situation more stable and that's not counting the 400,000 other firearms that are accounted for.

Scenario 1 (unarmed Civilians)
Death Squad moves from house to house killing everyone

Scenario 2 (armed Civilians)
Death Squad moves from house to house killing everyone

The person inside the house can't win. You might have two dozen assault rifles but you can't win because in a siege the besiegers hold the aces. The besieged can't re-fuel, re-supply, repair weapons, sleep, rest, etc. If you were an Iraqi under a new tyrant your best chance of survival would be to visibly support the regime or at the very least appear to be totally passive. Just having that gun could mean your death.

Having a pistol doesn't protect you from the government or the army. The best way to re-stabilise Iraq would have been to remove all of the Iraqis weapons. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun. A rifle doesn't protect you from a car bomb. Gifting an agitated population 190,000 guns will not make the situation more stable and that's not counting the 400,000 other firearms that are accounted for.

You forgot scenario three.

Armed civilians drive away death squad. Road bomb blows up next day, killing a lot of people. Death squad comes back in the middle of the night. Kill the survivors and torch the neighborhood.

No, you idiot. I already posted a link to the results of an internal BBC investigation which demonstrated its own bias. However, a poster did not have the patience to sift through the entire report, so I posted a summary link. If you can't be bothered to read the entire thing, don't complain that the summaries I posted are "biased."

I have read it and what you are saying is total BS. For a start the concept of the media having a "liberal bias" is a purely American idea. Secondly the word liberal in the UK has a completely different meaning to that used in the US. Thirdly the BBC internal report looks at how it maintains an unbiased viewpoint in the current UK political landscape - traditionally the BBC has been criticised by the left for being a right-wing government controlled institution (justified for many years by the involvement of MI5 in vetting employees) and by people like Norman Tebbitt on the right for being a bunch of left wingers.

So I repeat my question - have you FAG, GOT any evidence to support your position that the BBC reports says anything about the BBC having a "liberal bias".

If you have an extreme political viewpoint, you are likely to find a lot of bias, unwitting of the fact that it is you that is biased. There is nothing wrong with extreme views btw, as long as one does not resolve to violence. :)

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of the weapons we distributed in Iraq are fully accounted for (underlying the loyalty of the Iraqi armed forces), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% are unaccounted for at this time (although they can be later recovered or are being traced as a vital component of a brilliant sting operation and thus continue to serve a productive purpose despite being "lost").


How 'bout I put it to you this way:

Instead of focusing on the fact that a staggering 70% of my time is spent not shooting people (undermining my belief that I am sane), they zoom in on the fact that a mere 30% is spent shooting people at this time (although I could stop whenever I want and am probably being tracked by the police right now).

Clearer?

Yet another failure of control during reconstruction by the US govt? Colour me surprised - as surprised as coalition troops will be when facing weapons imported and handed out by their own government.

Nice...

"liberal bias" was used a grand total of once as stated

There are 38709 words in the document (yes that is the real count)

So the math is pretty simple :)

0.00516675708% of that article is taken up by the words "liberal bias"

Therefore, according to F'n'G's logic, we may as well ignore it.

YEAH.. but we are almost there. we just need a surge.

its all we need.. trust me. :D

A surge of Robocops!!