Turn on thread page Beta

Abu Ghraib watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)

    "The South Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq are due to be involved in humanitarian and rebuilding work, and the area they are to be based in, near Kurdish-controlled Irbil, has been largely peaceful. But the BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says that internet chat sites suggest a majority of Koreans believe their troops should not be taking part in what they see as an immoral occupation."

    Ah the scientific polling of the BBC. Anything to promote the idea that a war against terror and fascism is futile.

    Indeed, when it comes to political commentary by the back door, nobody does it better.
    The BBC manages to remain fairly objective imo. After all the majority of the public are against the war (im assuming the opinion is similiar in Korea) so its hardly propaganda to claim that most Koreans believe its an immoral occupation, though i would question the reliability of 'internet chat sites.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Nowhere have I yet made this suggestion,
    "on the whole we thought the American miltary or 'liberators' were above such behaviour" - where you equate the American military to decapitating an innocent civilian.

    ....look at the poll most people think that the event was so severe that it deserved the resignation of an influential member of the Bush Adminastration...not merely the court martialling of a couple of squaddies.
    with respect to everyone here, i wouldnt take the poll with much consideration.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    though i would question the reliability of 'internet chat sites.'
    precisely.

    the problem is there are a number of very good journalists at the BBC, and i understand that its natural to want to defend a British institution as successful and as respected. in the areas of sport, drama, documentaries etc., the BBC is quite superb. for the most part, the BBC is accurate, but critics such as myself, have a problem with the additional and often blatant bias, lack of context and political commentary - it is not often that the BBC actually reports on a story without slipping in some sweetner or other, to leave the piece loaded with opinion or sentiment. take this as an example,

    "The South Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq are due to be involved in humanitarian and rebuilding work, and the area they are to be based in, near Kurdish-controlled Irbil, has been largely peaceful."

    descriptive and objective.

    "But the BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says that internet chat sites suggest a majority of Koreans believe their troops should not be taking part in what they see as an immoral occupation."

    opinionated and subjective.

    people may argue that the reporter can apply what ever slant he wishes. and in general, that is the case in journalism, but it is not acceptable at the BBC.
    the BBC is a tax-payer funded institution, accountable only to itself. not only does it stress an obligation, but it is required to maintain objectivity. it is for these reasons that Kilroy was sacked, and his supposed racism wasnt part of any BBC material. if you are to take that stance which, had his column actually been racist, is quite acceptable, why not apply it to

    i) Jenny Tonge - who after proclaiming she would consider becoming a suicide bomber and declared a minutes silence for Hamas(a UN and EU recognised terrorist group) leader Sheikh Yassin, found herself a job on Radio 4's 'Today' program

    ii) Tom Paulin — "who among other things has compared Jewish settlers to Nazis, has said they should be "shot dead," compared the Israeli army to Hitler's SS, and said he could "understand how suicide bombers feel." Tom made such comments as part of his regular spot on Newsnight's Arts review


    as i had posted earlier, Tom Gross highlights substantial grounds for complaint.

    The BBC: Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, from Saudi Arabia, who opened London's biggest mosque last Friday, is a respected leader who works for "community cohesion" and "building communities."

    Not mentioned on the BBC: Some of the views of Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais. In his own words: In the name of Allah, the Jews must be "annihilated." They are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world... the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

    The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Iraq had no part whatsoever in 9/11.
    well, you obviously know more than the rest of us, because we simply dont know. there is a lot of "shadowy" evidence, but as of yet the President cannot and has not made "that claim".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    well, you obviously know more than the rest of us, because we simply dont know. there is a lot of "shadowy" evidence, but as of yet the President cannot and has not made "that claim".
    As you say we dont know, so it shouldnt be acceptable to put this 'fact' forward as justification for the Iraq war. I dont recall hearing any convincing evidence that suggests any truth to back this belief (if you have sources that do provide evidence id be very interested in seeing them.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    I know I couldnt be bothered to get into the argument with Moncal - they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it
    their argument. whos they? i wont comment on both your arguments(each to their own), but mine, as far as ive witnessed, have yet to be rigourously tested by yourself.

    the argument was and always will be the potential and "permissive" environment for Al-Qaeda to obtain nuclear, biological, weapons from Iraq. if that was not clear, you did not understand fully the reasons both governments illustrated before going to war.

    you also equate "Iraq wasnt involved in 9/11" with "Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it"

    two entirely different points. the first is common ground, the second, as you would know had any intelligence been consulted, is blatantly inaccurate. im confused as to how you obtained this foresight despite the majority of the worlds leaders coming to a distinctly different conclusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    As you say we dont know, so it shouldnt be acceptable to put this 'fact' forward as justification for the Iraq war. I dont recall hearing any convincing evidence that suggests any truth to back this belief (if you have sources that do provide evidence id be very interested in seeing them.)
    it was never an argument for the war.

    i do have, from a press conference in January of 2003.

    [Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

    THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

    THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

    on 26th September, Colin Powell said "there is no visible link between Iraq and Sept. 11, but it can't be dismissed".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Indeed. They seem to ignore the fact that the proven links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda are along the same lines of the proven links between the IRA and the British Government - which is to say they exist as there was dialogue between the two, but to suggest collusion between Saddam and Osama when the two despised each other
    Saddam worked with Palestinian terrorist groups, just as Al-Qaeda(Sunni) collaborated with Hezbollah(Shia).

    an indictment of Bin Laden in 1998, gave "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

    Bin Laden supported Saddams Fedayeen in the Sudan and have "discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression". in short, they had theological disagreements that pale in comparison with the shared ideological hatred of the West and of the USA.

    are you suggesting Thatcher provided safe haven and acted as an ideological ally for the IRA? who btw, are a paramilitary group with a political goal, not Gerry Adams, a recognised member of a political party and not a global cell practicing jihad against infidels.

    so yes, youre right, theres no difference, just like theres no difference between politicians and terrorists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    please assure me you are not trying to lay the blame for the death of this man at the door of the US.
    Of course not I was merely saying that had the US not invaded then this would not have happened
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=vienna95]"on the whole we thought the American miltary or 'liberators' were above such behaviour" - where you equate the American military to decapitating an innocent civilian.
    [QUOTE]

    No, here I was saying that we thought the Americans were above the abuse at Abu Ghraib, I was sayng that we expect brutal and evil acts by terrorists, we do not howver expect American GIs to abuse detainees
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh and Vienna.... I thought you didnt like the debates to go off topic??? I thought the thread was about Abu Ghraib not reasosn to go to war
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    an indictment of Bin Laden in 1998, gave "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

    Bin Laden supported Saddams Fedayeen in the Sudan and have "discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression". in short, they had theological disagreements that pale in comparison with the shared ideological hatred of the West and of the USA.
    Very interesting, wasnt aware of that.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    are you suggesting Thatcher provided safe haven and acted as an ideological ally for the IRA? who btw, are a paramilitary group with a political goal, not Gerry Adams, a recognised member of a political party and not a global cell practicing jihad against infidels.

    so yes, youre right, theres no difference, just like theres no difference between politicians and terrorists.
    I was saying nothing about the IRA, i merely used them for the purposes of analogy to elaborate upon my point that the suggestion of a relationship between Hussein and Bin Laden was based on a technicality. Also Gerry Adams was an IRA leader before becoming 'legitimate' and joining Sinn Feinn but again i used him merely for purposes of analogy and was making no comment upon himself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it was never an argument for the war.

    i do have, from a press conference in January of 2003.

    [Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

    THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

    THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

    on 26th September, Colin Powell said "there is no visible link between Iraq and Sept. 11, but it can't be dismissed".
    I wasnt saying that Bush himself made any specific referrence to this possibility as a reason for the war, i was merely reufuting this belief which is commonly held and put forward as fact by those defending the war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    I wasnt saying that Bush himself made any specific referrence to this possibility as a reason for the war, i was merely reufuting this belief which is commonly held and put forward as fact by those defending the war.
    well theres a difference between believing they were involved(this is dependent on whether you believe 'involved' to be collaboration in the act or support in terms of knowledge, logistical support, financial aid, political aid etc. just after 9/11 President Bush defined all those who didnt oppose terrorism as effectively siding with them. there is alot of evidence to suggest that this was indeed a position Saddam maintained) and stating their involvement as a fact. those who take the latter position would appear to be negligent of the findings, or lack of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was saying nothing about the IRA, i merely used them for the purposes of analogy to elaborate upon my point that the suggestion of a relationship between Hussein and Bin Laden was based on a technicality. Also Gerry Adams was an IRA leader before becoming 'legitimate' and joining Sinn Feinn but again i used him merely for purposes of analogy and was making no comment upon himself.
    its that analogy that i have a problem with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Oh and Vienna.... I thought you didnt like the debates to go off topic???
    i dont, im just going with the flow...

    I thought the thread was about Abu Ghraib not reasosn to go to war
    so did i. evidently you had other ideas.

    Originally Posted by Cossack
    "I know I couldnt be bothered to get into the argument with Moncal - they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument"

    Originally Posted by an Siarach
    "Indeed. They seem to ignore the fact that the proven links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda are
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)

    Originally Posted by Cossack
    "I know I couldnt be bothered to get into the argument with Moncal - they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Originally Posted by Cossack
    "I know I couldnt be bothered to get into the argument with Moncal - they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    three lines...it was meangt to be a dismissive three lines that would put a stop to the forking (cant think of thew right word) of the argument

    so prisoner abuse.......thats gotta suck
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    three lines...it was meangt to be a dismissive three lines that would put a stop to the forking (cant think of thew right word) of the argument
    well, just my opinion, but i would have gone for "can we try and keep on topic please?" or "lets not get into the whys and whatfors of the war"...interestingly you preferred "they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument"

    and you thought i wouldnt reply?!

    anyway...enough of that.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2004
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.