[quote name='"Inmate #10943"']
Well, I support our troops. I support them during the good times and the bad times. Re: the Marine involved in that incident - I saw the entire video about a dozen times but I wasn't there, you weren't there, Aljazeera wasn't there. I support that Marine because we do have a higher standard than the rest of the world. He deserves the same rights that he is risking his life to protect and that is - he is innocent until proven guilty. It's so easy to say, "Oh I support our troops except for this guy!" Until the investigation is complete people should hold their condemnation of what they "think" he did. [/quote
I wasn't there, you weren't there, aljazeera wasn't there, but an NBC reporter was there
link
"The shooting occurred when a Marine unit entered the mosque and found five men wounded in fighting at the site the day before, when another Marine unit clashed with gunmen apparently using the mosque to fire from, according to NBC's Kevin Sites, the pool correspondent who took the footage"
That's from your foxnews. I'd also like to know what rights he was protecting, considering Saddam's navy wasn't storming our beaches.
Though the fox website looks like a tabloid, with all that entertainment news, and some things which are just ridiculous.
Yeah, FOX News made it up, aha! It was also on CNN so I guess they made it up too! Oh, and it was also on MSNBC and I guess they also made it up!
That was my opinion of fox's website, I did not say they made it up (you can get info wrong without making it up). I do find that early reports from fox aren't always accurate though, they tend to grab at info that supports their point of view rather quick. They also tend to omit parts, or de-emphasize certain things. This is also true in the boston herald, which also looks like a tabloid (it's a news paper owned by murdoch). To back this up I will again direct you to the study (the link is in my last post) showing fox viewers as more likely to be misinformed about iraq (80% to 26% when compared with npr listeners), and this was not based on party lines.
No israeli soldier has ever died from stone throwing (and with all their armor it would be hard to). Who, if either of them, would you call the terrorist (personally I would say neither)? Or what about a week or so ago, where a disoriented little girl ran towards an israeli soldier and was shot.
Hey you got me there! You win an unlimited "Israeli Bus Pass" and you have nothing to fear riding the bus in Israel as there are NO terrorists.
I never said there were no terrorists, you were complaining about aljazeera covering palestinian deaths. Though I'd like to know where you'd rather spend the next month, tel aviv or jenin?
"The investigation did not find that the company or the company commander had acted unethically," an army statement said. "
And your point is (I'm guessing here) that the Israeli army investigation was a sham and cover-up.
It was an insult more than anything else. But my point was that an Israeli army officer shot a little girl, and then to remove any argument of an accident, walked up to her and shot her two more times in the head and walked away, and then just to be certain, returned to her corpse and then emptied his entire magazine into her. Then, the israeli army found that he was not guilty of unethical behavior, because his story of firing into the ground near the dead girl, and only accidentally hitting her, when his unit came under fire (instead of firing at the enemy) was likely true.
Please let me know when the PLO, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists complete their investigations on atrocities committed by their own. Because if they ever do complete their investigation and it turns out to be a sham like the Israelis grab your Bus Pass and me in Gaza so we can condemn them too.
Al qaeda and terrorist groups should not be expected to condemn them, their terrorist groups. They are not governments, they are not occupiers who claim to hold moral authority, they are terrorist groups. And here are some links to articles where the PLO arrested palestinian militants (some cases even ordered directly by arafat, including one where he arrested 12 members of his own security forces)
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
There is a bit of a difference here though, Hamas wields great power in the palestinian territories, they are viewed as one of the few ways of resisiting occupation and they also have extensive charities such as schools, soup kitchens, orphanages etc. Their charities are a big part of why they have such large support, the militant side is only one aspect of it. Many believe they may even be able to defeat the PA in a civil war. Large scale arrests of them is much more difficult, and much more dangerous for the government, than Israeli dealing with rogue soldiers in their army. Another problem is Israel is supposed to restrain themselves to stop attacks on civilians, while palestinians are supposed to stop all attacks on all occupying forces, instead of just stopping attacks on civilians. Sharon can alter the course of his army in a day, no palestinian leader has ever had that power. And if they do too much too quickly, if they appear they are an Israeli or american puppet, that will spell doom for the PA. My point is any attacks on civilians should be condemned, but in the palestinian territories it is not so simple that the PA can just demand attacks stop and it be done. And if they were to attack them all out (especially without the Arafat, the symbol of palestinian independence) there is a very good chance they would lose.
Well, one is committed by rogue terrorists with no moral authority, the other is committed by a government claiming it is their to help the people and build democracy. A little more is expected from the u.s. government than terrorists. Though, here's an article from the bbc....
Good Grief! You don't believe FOX News but you use the BBC as a reference. HELLO! Where have you been for the last 2 years. I'd believe the National Inquirer before I believed the BBC.
Taking into account that no news corporation is perfect, the BBC is still viewed as one of the most respected news organizations in the world. Also, they are funded by the government, which is why there was such a scandal when the bbc's andrew gilligan claimed the government deliberately fabricated the reports on Iraq's weapons capability. I would like to see how many scandals fox would have if they were held under such scrutiny over exaggerations. I find the bbc to be more accurate and comprehensive in international news than cnn, fox, msnbc and so on. Al jazeera is good for the middle east (they understand the area better, and have more staff in the area) but they are like fox, their facts are accurate, but their slant often gives an incorrect image of what is actually occuring. But they are the only major news source that really pays attention to the civilian costs of the Iraq war. Every news source has its positives and negatives, though I'd like to know why you would believe FOX is more accurate than the BBC, especially in international news.
"There has been widespread condemnation of the reported killing of a leading woman aid worker in Iraq who had been held hostage since last month.......
Yeah but no "Outrage" in the islamic world.
Well, you seem to show little concern for atrocities commited by americans or their allies, personally I'd like your opinion on abu ghraib, considering we did torture some prisoners to death ( fyi the majority of people we arrest are released by the u.s. army, without charges being brought). Though this really is ridiculous, what do you want people crying in the streets? They condemn it as a sin, un islamic, shameful, that is outrage. It just doesn't fit your image as Iraqi's being beasts, so you do everything to see it as something else.
Ah, the U.N.! Bet when they heard the U.N. was getting involved the inciters of terrorism started shaking in their sandals and ran to the nearest rat hole. Not to worry though with the U.N. on top of things just like they are in the Sudan and the Darfur region.
And what exactly have the world's police, a.k.a. americans, done about Darfur? They state that is definately genocide, and yet they do nothing, and they call for no intervention, international or otherwise. And besides, that was an example of outrage.
I'm very fortunate in what I do as I have access to all the cable news channels as well as World Band Radio news reports most of my waking hours. Contrary to Aljazeera and all anti-American leftist around the world, the terrorist in Iraq are not the Americans, and the real terrorists are NOT Freedom Fighters.
Americans have commited acts that they would classify under terrorism had the enemy done it, and many Iraqis are truly resistance fighters, ie. not engaged in terrorism against civilians. This is not a show of support or anything. Though there are some terrorists among resistance fighters, many of which are foreign. Though I'm starting to get your argument, any source which does not 100% support the u.s. invasion and view them as liberators, whose condemnable actions amount to nothing more than collateral damage, cannot be trusted.
And lastly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look how much you made me type and do the "quote" thingies and have to cut and paste and re-type (Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background) and edit and spell check and re-type again and stare at this monitor and miss most of the Steeler game and forgot to let the dog out and she you-know-what in the kitchen and then I got dropped to off-line and had to start the whole thing over again. I hope you're really really happy that I now have a huge headache and there's no aspirin in the house so I have to get in the car and go to the ATM then to a convenience store where I'll pay double for aspirin.
Thanks a lot! 
eh, I tend to answer everything, never liked to pick and choose very much. f
up you stupid nerds.