This comes from yesterday's WSJ Best of the Web Today:
The New York Times reports from Paris that France and Germany are belatedly considering how they can help in Iraq. "One senior French official" tells the paper: "The French Army would feel humiliated to go to Iraq and be put in the same category as the Poles or the Uruguayans as part of the cleanup team." Does French arrogance know any bounds?
No, Mr. Taranto. Absolutely no bounds.
Meanwhile, another synagogue has apparently been vandalized near Paris. After desecrating the place and stealing objects, they left the words JEWS==DEAD written on one of the walls.
What's the news from France? Oh, nothing really new, the same old news, you know, vandals desecrating cemeteries and synagogues and French officials insulting other countries.
love the French, glad they stood up to Sauron
-from the USA
Would the US army accept to be under command of lesotho or slovaquia ?
Except this, other news from France: Hundreds of firemen fight against enormous fires and risk their life to preserve environment and villages.
Of course, it doesn't interest the small world of Carine.
Apart from the current debate :
"So those who question George Bush's foreign policy are no longer merely critics; they are blasphemers, or "anti-Americans". Those foreign states which seek to change this policy are wasting their time: you can negotiate with politicians; you cannot negotiate with priests. The US has a divine mission, as Bush suggested in January: "to defend ... the hopes of all mankind", and woe betide those who hope for something other than the American way of life. "
You can read the full article, online on the site of the guardian unlimited (UK).
Here is a link : America is a religion
From the same article, thanks Guillaume, a "lesson of History" for Mrs Carine :
"The dangers of national divinity scarcely require explanation. Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced, like George Bush, that it possessed a heaven-sent mission to "liberate" Asia and extend the realm of its divine imperium. It would, the fascist theoretician Kita Ikki predicted: "light the darkness of the entire world". Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only to engineer a hell. "
Guillaume,
I take it by your reference to this article that you think that Iraq is worse off than it was before that war? Religious people usually have a disregard for the facts. It seems that your side is the one with the "religious" attitude. Otherwise, we would be discussing what has happened in actuality, not what happened in the past when French pride was wounded. This article seems more like projection to me.
Invective aimed at our hostess:
> You are a "Vichiste" because you are French,
> ennemy of "La France", as Vichists were.
> You also collaborate with Republicanazis
> American extremists, other ennemies of France.
A true piece of Cartesian logic this, eh? Who is accusing whom of blasphemy, I wonder. To whom is devotion to country considered more important than use of one's rational faculties?
Except this, other news from France: Hundreds of firemen fight against enormous fires and risk their life to preserve environment and villages.
Helped by Italian firefighters. Thanks for giving also only one part of the news Marc.
And what has certainly caused these fires? Pyromaniacs or people who are stupid enough to throw an un-extinct cigarette in forests.
Thanks for your fair reporting of the news too.
>Except this, other news from France: Hundreds >of firemen fight against enormous fires and >risk their life to preserve environment and >villages.
-Marc Levis
I think this statement points out the problem with France. You thinks its news when someone does their job. Who would every believe that firemen would fight fires? What is the world coming to? Next thing you know, policemen will be out enforcing the law, farmers spend their time farming, cats and dogs living together ... Ahhh! the sky is falling!
Then again, with all your stikes, I suppose it is news worthy that french fireman are fighting fires.
I wonder if fighting might be to stong of a word for the french.
"Helped by Italian firefighters"
You forgot Russian firefighters.
"Thanks for your fair reporting of the news too."
Thanks that you notice it.
"You thinks its news when someone does their job"
"I suppose it is news worthy that french fireman are fighting fires."
I think that the fact that hundred of firemen fight enormous and a anormally huge number of fires , increasing by this way the risks they take, is more interesting than the pre-supposed small sentence told by an unknown french official ,written somewhere in a corner of an american newspaper.
You are free to think what you want, but I had in mind that firemen were heroes after 9/11.
Only Us firemen are heroes ? And the French firemen do only their job ?
No comment....
Ah, Mr. Levshit,
I see that you are trolling about again, you ignorant fuckweasel. Since you take every opportunity to try to belittle us (especially Carine) we suspect you don't like us (awww, my heart is broken). One can only wonder, then, why it is that you so persistently hang around. Surely all of that fecal matter can't be good for you (you know the one you're so full of)? Are your rose bushes withering? If so, allow us to point out that the correct remedy is horse manure. It pales, however, next to our amazement that there are still micro-encephalic muttfucks like you around. We're really being too kind, but this is a family oriented blog and there are limits to what we can say, you know. You are, if nothing else, consistent in your twisting everything, especially the truth, to fit your "theory". Listen carefully, my poor Idiot Child: Those big, dusty books in the library with lots of nasty text and not nearly enough pretty pictures are called "history books". You might consider reading some of them, sorry, strike that, you might consider learning to read, then reading some of them before you start drawing Asinine parallels, you Ignorant Imbecile. Oh, and thanks for the upcoming compliment, by the way. We're nothing if not good-mannered. I take Carine, and her facts, over you anyday. Considering that the alternative would be appealing to, and be associated with, the likes of you...
Very funny post, andy. No irony, I laughed a lot.
thanks
Only Us firemen are heroes ? And the French firemen do only their job ?
No comment....
That's not at all what Shannon said. So don't make us say what we haven't said.
Btw, I'd like to add that French firefighters, again this year, like last year, have welcome family members of NYC firefighters who died on 9/11.
See, good side of France coming from me. Were you only aware of this yourself, Marc?
Andy,
I bet it feels good, right?
Thanks for the support ;)
Good work fellas. You took an article about synagogue vandalism in Paris and an article about French and German participation in Iraq and blamed it on the Americans somehow. Excellent style and technique, just as advised in the guide book. No extra points because no references to Rumsfled though. But still a valient effort none the less.
On a personal note. I wish to praise the heroic efforts of the French firemen who, with out any concerns to their personal saftey, are currently watching the Italian and Russian firemen put out those fires. Bravo. Bravo. Bra... VO!
I am truly amazed by the level of the debate on this website!
I knew for sure that the american people was extremely well versed on a wide range of topics such as base-ball, football and other highly intellectual concerns.
You all should go back to your history books if you ever had any and try to learn more about your own fight for independance and the influence of the french.
But I know to well that memory can fail especially when fueled with Coca Cola and other healthy beverage of yours.
I am very worrying for the future of this country when I see such websites.
The fouding fathers hoped for a country of tolerance and freedom...how far we are.
I am sad because I love this country. I love perhaps the mirage of it...I am sad to be in love with an empty shell.
I am not proud of the people who took over this country and diverted it from its ideal.
Shame on people like you! You are the pest of America
Marquis
Marquis,
What's your problem with this site exactly? That the news we post about France are true?
Please explain yourself clearly, state your grievances, prove your arguments, because all you did so far is showing us that you are the empty shell. A broken empty shell hearing some kind of a faraway echo of puerile and childish clichés about the US.
A very nice and eloquant post Marquis mon ami. Your concern over the quality of debate here touched me deeply. But alas, I am having trouble connecting anything that you wrote with the newspaper article concerning the recent vandalism of the synagogue in Paris. Oui, this is only one event on a series which nobody in France wishes to talk about. Soon you won't be able to even find a Jew in Paris who would want to talk about it either, according to some minor developments in the make up of Jews emigres. Apparently the number of Jewish people leaving France has doubled. That in itself is not that as significant as the change of the demographic. Instead of old retirees leaving, it is now predominately young people. It's probably nothing. And if it is, it is probably better for all concerned to advise the Americans to study their history more. And don't you Americans think for a moment that means reading any of those Stephen Ambrose books either. You need to read history written by the more sophisticated authors, like uhm... ahhh... Michael Moore?
"Would the US army accept to be under command of lesotho or slovaquia ?" It already does, and American soldiers are not happy about it. It has led to the death of many American soldiers and many Americans constantly question why Americans should EVER be under the command of anyone other than Americans or British. I for one don't think the US should participate in ANY UN peacekeeping unless the overall operation is commanded by either US officers or British officers.
"Except this, other news from France: Hundreds of firemen fight against enormous fires and risk their life to preserve environment and villages."
Oddly enough that is pretty standard in the US.
"You all should go back to your history books if you ever had any and try to learn more about your own fight for independance and the influence of the french."
I actually happen to be reading a historical book. I'm learning all kinds of things such as France's pro-Nazi activities, their subversive activities, and their espionage activities in the US between 1938 and .... Well, I'm only up to the end of 1941 right now. Don't worry, I'm also learning about pro-Nazi industrialists and communists in the US at the time.
Kal
Dear all:
Naturally the history of my country is not an example to follow. A nation as an individual learns from its mistakes. The only sad thing seems to be that the mistakes and erroneous beliefs do not shade any light on the path of the younger nations or civilisation (I speak about Europe as well that did not learn from the Romans and so forth...)
As far as the jews in France, you should know that France is the second largest diaspora after USA...It seems to be a welcoming country as I am concerned.
The issues that you are talking about (vandalism of Synagogue etc...) are really serious one.
The french government is very active on that concern and try to do its best to sanction the people that perpetarting these atrocities.
As you know we have some serious immigration problems in France. That creates some conflicts of culture and/or religions that are very hard to keep under control.
However, these acts of vandalism are limited to a very small group of individuals.The medias are not fair on that matter.
This is erroneous to think that all french people are antisemitics. Several member of the french government are jewish.
Another complaint against Stephen Ambrose has emerged. This one dates back to 1970, when fellow historian Cornelius Ryan accused him of a 'rather graceless falsification' in Ambrose's book, The Supreme Commander. The allegations were first reported Tuesday on Forbes.com
I can tell that Stephen Ambrose is really a man to read and to trust today
Marquis
Let's go on with your piece of news Marc, if you don't mind. Since you suggested we should talk about fires in France, let's keep ourselves updated:
A 29-year-old man rejected as a volunteer firefighter confesses to starting some of the fires that have raged through the south of France, according to a report.
Jousse admitted to starting five fires in Draguignan, one in Figanieres, one in La Motte and two at Callas using matches or a lighter to set fire to twigs by the roadside late in the evening, Reuters reported. He also said he started two fires a year ago
Four people died so far. Thousands of people have been evacuated. And, as Marc pointed out, hundreds of firefighters are currently trying to stop those criminal fires.
Several other pyromaniacs have been arrested too.
It's time for peace now. French and americans living in peace, loving each others, no more insults or discussion -sorry, no i'm sorry
let's date each others. Carine i admit you got a un je ne sais quoi. You're very seductive you know. All you need is love! isn't? you're not tired of endless debate, so am i.
Marquis,
I notice that you started by blaming the "level of the debate of this website", repeating what you probably read in Le Monde or Libération or L'Humanité, and ended acknowledging the debate was actually hitting the bull's-eye.
Thank you. Your participation was crucial. Thanks for raising the level of the debate, really.
Carine, it hurts. no reference to me in your last post
Mr. Nooooooo,
Debate is good, opposing points of view is always enriching. So no, I'm not tired. Though some, here, are indeed sending insults when they lack arguments.
And I already have all the love I need, thank you very much.
Marquis, just another thing,
As far as the jews in France, you should know that France is the second largest diaspora after USA...It seems to be a welcoming country as I am concerned.
Sadly, this doesn't seem true anymore as far as Jews are concerned. Check this:
Recently the Israeli government reported that 2,556 French Jews immigrated last year, the largest annual influx since the 1967 war, and double the figure for 2001. A recent poll by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency suggested that more than 25 percent of France's Jews have considered leaving.
Lafayette organised some black african slaves from Santa Domingo ( the most prosperous of the slave colonies - owned by France ) into a regiment and took them to fight for the americans ( thats us). we thanked him by paying his freight home. the King repayed him by refusing to meet him or grant an audience. (see we Americans never gave a shit if a King gave us an audience or not so Its hard to relate to this as a punnishment but back in the age of stupidity when a conquoring General returned from war abroad the King was expected to at least get him laid so not even talking to the dude is like a bitch slap )
In the mean time the black regiment that Lafayette formed from slave labor in Santo Domingo returned home overthrew their French slave masters and formed the second oldest republic in America. Present day Haiti.
French howled. No more slave labor money coming in from Haiti. For the first time in generations the French had to {GASP) work for a living!
some did but most just lazyed about until the creditors came knocking then declaired a revolution and killed all the creditors and the King. Convenient eh?
still celebrating Bastile day? didn't you read the History book? Celebrating Bastile day is like celebrating 911 (something I heard many Frenchmen did and are continuing to do) A nation founded by bankrupt murderers. happy Bastile day frenchie
(to be continued)
"A 29-year-old man rejected as a volunteer firefighter confesses to starting some of the fires that have raged through the south of France, according to a report."
That's what I heard today. I'm not going to condemn France for that though, they have unstable nut-jobs just like every other country. We've had a number, over the last couple of years, that were started by nut-jobs.
Kal
Marquis,
Falsification? That's an absurd charge by Ryan. Well it does seem rather odd to call plagiarism "a rather graceless falsification" of history. I mean if Ambrose falsified passages from Ryan's book, it couldn't possibly be plagiarism. And also vice versa. If Ambrose plagiarised passages from Ryan's book, then Ambrose couldn't possibly falsify any historical fact. It was Ryan.
But let us consider for a moment that it is possible, in a purely hypothetical academic exercise. Then, I think only a great writer could pull such a stunt off. I mean if he's really good... or she (Sorry, I didn't mean to oppress you there Carine... at least not quite yet. Dam! Does anyone know how to shut off the AudioTyper thing? Ahhh F3, convert to manual typing.) Ok, now if he's really sharp, I think a truely great writer could pull it off. I don't think Ambrose is that good a writer. And why should he be? He was a historian.
Anyway, I agree with you that Ambrose is not a man to be trusted today. Unless of course, it's with a secret. Hell, I'd trust him with a secret right now, no problem. Well, I'm certainly not going to trust you or Luther... or even Carine for that matter. But Stephen? No problem! He'd take it with him, right to his gr... uhm, Ambrose was cremated wasn't he?
Hmmm. Well, I suppose you just can't trust anyone anymore. I mean what's the point. I should just tell everyone right now. Someone will tell you all anyway. Ok. Ok, if that's the way it is then I'll just type it out now. No I won't, I'll say it. No, shout it! F4 AudioTyper is on. I'm
(Error message 404, post has exceeded maximum allowable limit)
Mayeau about Lafayette:"we thanked him by paying his freight home. "
A bit simplistic Mayeau. You're ignoring the fact that the grattitude of many Americans was made clear to him, and that he had a deeply shared feeling of brotherhood with many Americans, not the least was George Washington himself. I don't recall what gifts Washington gave him, but I have seen pictures of the gifts he gave to Washington. They are stilll, quite reverently, on display along with accounts of what the US owes him.
As to the King, well it's not like he was all that big a supporter of the US.
Kal
That's stupid Mayeaux. Historian consider Americans, terrorists during the revolution war considering that 2/3 of Americans didn't want this war. But i'm not gonna say that your celebrating terrorist attack. You're stupid. There's more in symbol than an attack.
P.S. Don't try arguying me about History. I'm a history student and this fact was giving to me by a Canadian-Irish teachers. So no parti pris
Posted by marquis at July 30, 2003 02:36 PM
> You all should go back to your history books
yep, typical arrogance.
> about your own fight for independance and the
> influence of the french.
I know all about it. I also know about their influence on our forming our department of the Navy.... do you?
Posted by Marquis at July 30, 2003 04:18 PM
> That creates some conflicts of culture and/or
> religions that are very hard to keep under
> control.
That's why Jose Bove went to Ramallah to bring his friend Arafat lunch? He is an immigrant?
Or is it why that is accepted in France (some conflict of culture.. alas, your onto something)?
Bush is the evil of the universe because he speaks poorly, but you can have nothing but sympathy for a murdering terrorist and be a folk hero in France...
It's all aesthesis... so vapid..
"I'm a history student and this fact was giving to me by a Canadian-Irish teachers."
I guess then that we should all still be ruled by kings then.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samual Adams addresses Canadadian boot lickers.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Good sentence Spawn, It applies also to the Quebecians that choose to eat in the hands of Canadian Federalists rather than to fight for the real country they deserve.
Is it me? Or did a bunch of French people just write, "If it weren't for France's help during the Revolution, you Americans would be speaking English now." What the hell is going on over there?
from todays guardian:
A US department of energy panel of experts which provided independent oversight of the development of the US nuclear arsenal has been quietly disbanded by the Bush administration, it emerged yesterday.
The decision to close down the national nuclear security administration advisory committee - required by law to hold public hearings and issue public reports on nuclear weapons issues - has come just days before a closed-door meeting at a US air force base in Nebraska to discuss the development of a new generation of tactical "mini nukes" and "bunker buster" bombs, as well as an eventual resumption of nuclear testing.
Neither the NNSA - part of the department of energy - nor the 15 panel members returned calls seeking comment yesterday.
from the Independent
American military officials acknowledged that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul - reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.
A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.
The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".
Marc,
This is quite a detour from discussion about the drop in amarican tourism in France. But I'm not surprised, you hardly can stay on topic, and to follow your words:
"It applies also to the Quebecians that choose to eat in the hands of Canadian Federalists rather than to fight for the real country they deserve."
They are called Quebeckers in Canada.
And frankly speaking the English Canada would gladly had this separation problem solved either way:
1. separate already
2. drop the idea and become a good federal citizen
However, the Qubeckers prefer to have it both ways and squeeze additional cash/benefits from the federal government using the threat of secession and screwing the whole Canada all the time.
Luther,
Re the death of the two Taliban prisoners and suspected Al Qaeda members: I guess you would like us to cry over the cruel treatments these "freedom fighters" suffered, after being questioned by evil and barbarian American soldiers, am I right?
Would you please do me a favor, and check this, this, this and this.
I just wanted to complete your article. Just to confirm how the death of those pieces of trash, to quote Colin Powell, will represent a loss for the human kind.
But since we're talking about unfair treatment, did you protest against the treatment of women when the Taliban regime was in place? Did you get involved in any kind of action to stop massacres perpetrated by the Talibans?
Do you also join islamist forums to protest the way women are being treated on a daily basis by islamist fundamentalists?
Of course, between your article and my questions about your involvement in defending the oppressed of the world there is a slight difference: your Talibans were murderers, the victims I'm talking about were... just victims. So I'm wondering, which side are you defending?
Tell me please, I'm listening.
Dear Spawn,
that's my point of view. I don't blame the American revolution. I gave this example to someone who said a stupid thing about Bastille day
Carine,
They are not my Taliban at all. I deplored the Taliban regime, and I am glad that they're gone.
Really, they are the absolute antithesis of my idea of government.
No, I didn't do anything much about stopping them, It just abhorred it, and my friends did too.
And no, I don't contribute to fundamentalist Islamist forums, for a few reasons:
I wouldn't know where to find one;
I wouldn't know if the particular people in the forum did treat women badly;
I appreciate my own western cultural bias and I wouldn't think it right for me to impose my cultural values on others;
and connected to the last reason, I feel this is a more appropriate location for me put my point of view across.
Regarding the death of those two individuals,
the outcome everyone who wanted the wars (and probably just about anyone else after it was done) expected was a better system of government, including human rights and due legal process. The treatment of those men and others even now, falls well below our expectations of those things doesn't it(?). Thus, the moral case for war is undermined.
Torture produces unreliable evidence (people will say/sign anything after sustained torture), never mind it's intrinsic wickedness.
But most damning of all, the important word in your description of them: alleged
I don't have to elaborate on the implications of that word to another citizen of a democracy.
Why does the US government deny due legal process to its "enemy combatants" (an invented term to bypass international law)?
You must appreciate the circumstances of their captivity are disgraceful, as are the circumstances they will be tried in before the US government's extraordinary military courts.
I reiterate my two main charges against this site:
it is racist, (the fact that its a heterogeneous mix of people is irrelevant your treatment of the nation)
and it is hypocritical.
I reiterate my two main charges against this site:
it is racist, (the fact that its a heterogeneous mix of people is irrelevant your treatment of the nation)
and it is hypocritical.
why doesn't it suprize me that a Canadian history teacher would portray American revolutionaries as terrorists. The series of French-Indian wars have more to do with the revolution then layfaette anyhow.
Americans had to learn to fight against what amounted to guarillas. Frenchmen leading INdians would waiit for the odd lone family swoop down unawares kill them all and move on to the next target. Basicly the French perfidious and craven attacks taught us americans how to fight the British.
Luther, those are cliches which are eligible for a state pension. Ok, I shall accomodate you. I will have a special "Victims of Racial Injustice" day which will feature writings from the people who have suffered in the great atrocities. The Africans who suffered under slavery... The Jews who suffered during the Holocaust... The Armenians during the genocide... The Kosovars in Srebrenica... and finally the French at PaveFrance!
How terribly you must have suffered Luther. The many friends you have lost. The family members who died in your arms. The endless nights you have awoken in sheer terror and cold damp sweat. The mourning widows. The children's caskets. The pain of hunger in your empty stomac. No time to even cry. And whilest all this was happening... Carine didn't even blame the Americans once! Oh tell us Luther, how did you ever survive?
Luther,
If this site is racist, then what do you call 'real racism', such as refusing to allow GMO foods to be grown in Africa, thereby starving black Africans, to protect European farmers?
The Geneva Convention:
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Read Article 4 as to who is to be treated as a "prisoner of war"
Article 4
...
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Taliban fighters were not treated as illegal combatants. Members of Al Quaeda are not prisoners of war.
If you believe that they are, answer the following questions:
To whom do we go to seek terms, or even, to whom do we surrender?
Since there is no fixed leadership, how do we know when hostilities are over, and that it is time to release our prisoners?
Luther, I know that you believe the stuff you post. My question is, do you really think about it? or do you just quote that liar Gilligan off the BBC unquestioningly?
Luther: "I reiterate my two main charges against this site:
it is racist, (the fact that its a heterogeneous mix of people is irrelevant your treatment of the nation)and it is hypocritical."
I like Luther's definition. Using his definition it becomes clear that Le Monde is a racist newspaper, considering the hammering it gives the heterogenous American people. And don't even get me started on Al-Jazheera.
Kal
"I wouldn't know if the particular people in the forum did treat women badly;
I appreciate my own western cultural bias and I wouldn't think it right to impose my cultural values on others....."
That's right, Luke! Women in some muslim countries get stoned to death for being the victims of rape. Women who have affairs are murdered. Some are gang-raped for the transgressions of their brothers or fathers. Others are beaten at will for no good reason.
Hey- Who are we to judge? I mean, we're really no better than they are. We shouldn't be condemning them now, should we? What they're doing really isn't wrong; it's.........just another way of doing things.
Isn't that right, Luke?
Oh! And another thing, Luke-
Y'know that hatred you have for America and Americans in general? The way we act, the things we do. Well- that's just the way we are! You shouldn't go around trying to impose your values on the rest of us. We're not really wrong. We're just a different culture. Stop trying to impose your North Atlantic values on us! Man, all of your comments about America and what we're about! I think that makes you a ..........racist.
Get the 'less gifted' out of the way first...
Luther, those are cliches which are eligible for a state pension. Ok, I shall accomodate you. I will have a special "Victims of Racial Injustice" day which will feature writings from the people who have suffered in the great atrocities. The Africans who suffered under slavery... The Jews who suffered during the Holocaust... The Armenians during the genocide... The Kosovars in Srebrenica... and finally the French at PaveFrance!
How terribly you must have suffered Luther. The many friends you have lost. The family members who died in your arms. The endless nights you have awoken in sheer terror and cold damp sweat. The mourning widows. The children's caskets. The pain of hunger in your empty stomac. No time to even cry. And whilest all this was happening... Carine didn't even blame the Americans once! Oh tell us Luther, how did you ever survive?
Puzzling. What's your point?
I think your unnecessary wordiness might be confusing me.
"I wouldn't know if the particular people in the forum did treat women badly;
I appreciate my own western cultural bias and I wouldn't think it right to impose my cultural values on others....."
That's right, Luke! Women in some muslim countries get stoned to death for being the victims of rape. Women who have affairs are murdered. Some are gang-raped for the transgressions of their brothers or fathers. Others are beaten at will for no good reason.
Hey- Who are we to judge? I mean, we're really no better than they are. We shouldn't be condemning them now, should we? What they're doing really isn't wrong; it's.........just another way of doing things.
Isn't that right, Luke?
If you seperate the two statements you quote from my post, as I did originally, then maybe you will understand my points, and then you can criticise them properly.
Oh, and my name's not Luke ;o)
Spawn,
If this site is racist, then what do you call 'real racism', such as refusing to allow GMO foods to be grown in Africa, thereby starving black Africans, to protect European farmers?
A statement as ridiculous as it is sweeping.
Who "refuses to allow GMO foods to be grown in Africa"?
Re. Geneva convention
I never mentioned the convention per se but the passage you quote is certainly open to debate.
Many legal experts argue that the US is in breach of international law by holding any of the detainees indefinitely without trial or charge.
Also held in the camp are three children between the ages of 13 and 15.
Holding the children was "wholly repugnant and contrary to basic principles of human rights," said Angela Wright of Amnesty International, and contravened UN rules with "near-universal acceptance" regarding the treatment of juveniles.
The United States and Somalia are the only member states of the United Nations no to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the US is a signatory, and thus has "an obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty," Ms Wright said. "This is clearly totally at odds with the purpose of the treaty."
Kal,
"it is racist, (the fact that its a heterogeneous mix of people is irrelevant your treatment of the nation)and it is hypocritical."
I like Luther's definition. Using his definition it becomes clear that Le Monde is a racist newspaper, considering the hammering it gives the heterogenous American people. And don't even get me started on Al-Jazheera.
We should all be careful that we are criticising the governments of the country in question.
If Le Monde (I don't read it) is behaving in a similar way to this site, then yes, it is racist as well. My ideas are consistent.
I may as well say I have many American friends and relatives.
Some people named Luther have called themselves "Luke", probably after the rapper Luther Campbell, aka- "Luke". If it offends your sensibilities, I'll use your real name. I'm sure you have a few choice names for me already.;o)
If you seperate the two statements you quote from my post, as I did originally......."
They were part of a paragraph you wrote about why you don't engage in fundamentalist Islamist forums. You were the one who put them together in the first place.
I may as well say I have many American friends and relatives
Just as outsiders like you and your French friends hate America there are American citizens who are part of the Hate America crowd, too. I'm sure you guys have plenty to talk about.
"I never mentioned the convention per se but the passage you quote is certainly open to debate."
This is more Luther bluster. The Geneva Convention governs POW treatment.
On what grounds? You have made a claim, show me the passage, the section that you believe is accords members of Al Quaeda protection under the convention. The convention is not that long. Article 4 could be read in a minute. I think that you think that the Geneva Convention is wrong, which is a different issue and does not put the US outside of "International Law", whatever that is. You throw your lies around like so many Molotov cocktails, caring nothing for the facts.
When are you going to make a claim that checks out? When you give up your left-wing views I suspect.
"Who "refuses to allow GMO foods to be grown in Africa"?"
Spawn is wrong in that the EU does not refuse to allow GMO foods to be grown in Africa. Their policy is to forbid the importation of GMO foods or foods that may have potentially been contaminated by GMO crops. It is African nation's choice not grow GMO crops because this would make it impossible for them to export any crops to Europe. It's a case of African nations choosing money. The EU chooses politics over science. It is not a problem limited to the EU, or its member nations. The US has done the same thing.
By the way, the Taliban was NEVER entitled to protection under the Geneva conventions (neither are most countries), they are neither a high signing member. The second instance in which they would have been covered would be if they adhered to the conventions themselves, that would force the high signatories and their allies to treat them as covered by the conventions. A third case, is a country allied with a signatory must follow and accept the conventions, again the Taliban doesn't qualify for protection under that part either.
And yet the coalition forces endeavoured to treat captured combatants under the rules of the convention.
"Many legal experts argue that the US is in breach of international law by holding any of the detainees indefinitely without trial or charge."
They are being held indefinitely in that no definite date for release has been given. Just like in every war no one gives a date to release enemy combatants (whether they have POW status or not) until hostilities have ended. The war on terrorism has not ended, though the Afghanistan theatre conflict seems to have ended.
As to the children between the ages of 13 and 15, as I recall to be accurate it is actually A child of 13 (who was armed and fired on coalition forces) and two 15 year olds in the same circumstance. Are you saying that teenagers should be allowed to attack Americans without fear of capture or retaliation? That's what you seem to be implying by condemning the detention of enemy combatants who aren't 18.
"Holding the children was "wholly repugnant and contrary to basic principles of human rights," said Angela Wright of Amnesty International, and contravened UN rules with "near-universal acceptance" regarding the treatment of juveniles."
The rules weren't ratified as such they have no bearing whatsoever on American actions. The US is loathe to ratify any treaty that might bind it or has any small loophole that can be used by foreign powers. This is because, unlike other countries, once ratified a treaty becomes "Law of the land" and cannot be altered without a constitutional amemdment which are extremely difficult to pass in the US. Not to mention that we've found that other countries see this as a way of containing, controlling and manipulating the US covertly.
Unlike European countries we have to abide by ratified treaties and we can't change them or ignore them once they are in force. To do so would violate our constitution, and our constitution is harder to change than it is for most European countries.
Steven den Beste has a good explanation of this at http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/11/TheAtlanticgulf.shtml
Kal
'A statement as ridiculous as it is sweeping.
Who "refuses to allow GMO foods to be grown in Africa"?'
'The Washington Post reports on Mr Bush's speech, which claims that the Europeans, by closing their markets to GMOs, have caused African nations to avoid investments in such crops.
He said that the American efforts to reduce hunger in Africa have been impeded by European policies of blocking all new bio-crops because of "unfounded, unscientific fears."
"European governments should join - not hinder - the great cause of ending hunger in Africa", he said. "I propose that all developed nations, including our partners in Europe, immediately eliminate subsidies on agricultural exports to developing countries so that they can produce more food to export and more food to feed their own people", he added.'
http://www.obv.org.uk/europe/eu20030522a.html
I will admit that it is a sweeping statement, and that it is my opinion, I have neither primary sources, nor the time to search them up, but it is not ridiculous, nor is it unfounded. Many people hold it on this side of the Atlantic, even if the idea seems absurd to Europeans. This is the kind of thing we Americans mean when we say you Europeans are blinkered by primarily state-owned, left-wing press. It would seem that you would have at least seen this idea somewhere before were your press truly independent and free.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2148452.stm
'In June, the United States gave 8,500 tonnes of maize to Zimbabwe but a further 10,000 tonnes was turned away by the government because it did not have a certificate saying that it was GM-free.'
Why does a starving country refuse food that Americans happily eat?, because they could get shut out of European markets if they cannot certify their own crops to be GM-free. That is racism at its worst, placing unquanitiably small risks to Europeans over the spectre of immediate starvation for black Africans.
Not a discussion web site that increases understanding.
"Why does a starving country refuse food that Americans happily eat?, because they could get shut out of European markets if they cannot certify their own crops to be GM-free. That is racism at its worst, placing unquanitiably small risks to Europeans over the spectre of immediate starvation for black Africans."
I disagree Spawn. Europe's self-interest is not inherently racists simply because it is Africans who are getting the short end of the stick in this case. I don't believe the EU et al care about the skin color of anyone whose interests are counter to theirs. If Africa was all white I'd bet they'd still prohibit GMO crops simply because that's where they see their own interests laying. I mean France was willing to screw over the US (which is predominantly white) to further its own interests in Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I believe that in the case of GMO foods, the Congo, Ivory Coast, and others, we're seeing simple self-interest at the expense of poorer countries. ie Business as usual among nations.
Kal
Hey, don't make their arguments for them! I wanted to see how they justify their policies, while criticizing us for our policies in Iraq, which kill many fewer people. I think the "racist" tag is way overused, but if this site is racist, then their policy on GM food is far more racist. They are the ones who stretched the term beyond recognition. I was more interested in baiting them to try to defend their position on GM foods. I am beginning to suspect that they are all teenagers, however.
I also don't understand why it should be in the EU's interest to prohibit GMO crops.
The EU has the agricultural infrastructure to reap exactly the same alleged benefits of GMO crops as the US.
There had been a moratorium on GMO crops for a while in Britain and other countries to allow legitimate scientific concerns to be addressed.
As I said, I never actually mentioned the Geneva conventions.
I don't think it is applicable to members of Al Qaeada
The alleged enemy combatants are being held indefinitely without trial or charge.
This is clearly against the spirit if not the letter of international law.
Most people would acknowledge America is doing pretty much what it bloody well wants with them?
I am British, there isn't really any state-owned mass media apart form the BBC, and they'd be pretty lefty to you guys I imagine...unlike the government of our non-treacherous dog Prime Minister ;o)
The US is loathe to ratify any treaty that might bind it or has any small loophole that can be used by foreign powers. This is because, unlike other countries, once ratified a treaty becomes "Law of the land" and cannot be altered without a constitutional amemdment which are extremely difficult to pass in the US. Not to mention that we've found that other countries see this as a way of containing, controlling and manipulating the US covertly.
Well, I agree that the US is loathe to ratify any treaty that might bind it. That's where it ends though...the rest is very neo-conservative of you ;o) (apart from the factual constitutional bit).
As for that article,
Steven den Beste has a good explanation of this at http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/11/TheAtlanticgulf.shtml
The Europeans come from a culture which has a long tradition of power and authority flowing from above downward. At different times different groups have been in command, but there is always the feeling that power naturally should concentrate in a few hands, who grant as much or as little downward as they wish.
What 'culture' doesn't have long tradition of power and authority flowing from above downward?
there is always the feeling that power naturally should concentrate in a few hands?
I actually find that statement quite offensive.
It insults my intelligence.
The analysis is pretty crass and very subjective.
No amount of rhetoric about "international law" can actually make us comply with it if we're determined to ignore it. Ultimately the only way that international power can rule us is if we let it, which means that ultimately its power over us is granted by us by consent or complacency, unless it is imposed on us militarily.
Europeans think that international power, just as national power, must be concentrated in the hands of a wise ruling elite, and thus the argument is only about who that elite will be
Do you go along with this stuff?
What 'culture' doesn't have long tradition of power and authority flowing from above downward?
American for one. Hawaiian monarchs also ruled at the sufferage of their people who tended to remove bad chiefs and replace them with another member of the aristocracy.
Do you go along with this stuff?
I agree with quite a bit of it. The impression I get from European pundits and comments is that Europe knows better than the US and I recall reading prominent op/eds in Le Monde (translated) that decried the ability of the 'masses' to make informed and intelligent deciscions for itself.
This is an attitude that we have come to expect from Europeans. Partially because it is enforced by intellectuals in the US and partially because we, in the US, don't usually get to hear the opinions of Norweigian ironworkers, French electricians, or British machinists. Thing is, we don't hear views by their American counterparts in the media either. We can, however, easily hear the opinions and thoughts by American millwrights by going to a local cafe, but are not able to hear their European counterpart's thoughts and vice versa. However, with the internet going the way it is now, Europeans have every opportunity to hear the thoughts and opinions of an American welder/machinist/millwright.
As to the den Beste's opinion of the UN I do share that also. The UN's charter gives it permission to enforce its will, by force, on countries who have chosen not to be part of it. The UN's force, however, is entirely reliant on the goodwill of a few countries. It is a goodwill that the UN (both its bureaucracy and its member states hostile to the US) has gone out of its way to alienate.
Kal
" countries to allow legitimate scientific concerns "
There is that word "legitimate" again. Every time someone on the left wants to make a claim based on raw political power, rather than evidence of facts and logic you drag out that word "legitimate". Meanwhile, just as in the case of Iraq, where Europe claimed that "legitimacy" was more important than the suffering of the Iraqi people, Europe claims that "legitimate" concerns justify the starvation of Africans and Asians.
"I am British, there isn't really any state-owned mass media apart form the BBC,"
The BBC is everywhere in the UK, Multiple radio and TV channels, and they have been shown to be a pack of liars, letting their hatred for America, and their leftist agenda control their news judgement. Just because you agree with them does not make them truthful or balanced. I would think you would want all the information you could get, not be spoon fed pink agitprop. Gilligan appeared on the air in Bagdhad calling the US liars, while he himself was lying, as was proved later. What a proud moment for Britain.
"This is clearly against the spirit if not the letter of international law."
Well thanks for the climb down, but I am still not buying it. It is only against the European feelings about what the spirit of the law is. In fact, if you read the text, in no way can you conclude that it intended 'in spirit' to protect groups like Al Quaeda. I would like you to show me the section that supports your claim.
Spawn,
I use the word legitimate in its defined senses:
it is legal (our parliament demanded it);
it is reasonable and acceptable
The BBC and Andrew Gilligan
Major General Patrick Cordingley who has commented on the war for the BBC said Radio 4 has been "impartial" to the point of being "annoyingly so at times".
"Often the questioning has seemed challenging and unsympathetic at a time when everyone is praying for good news. We want to hear our troops are winning not dying.
"But in the end I've come to admire the media... Perhaps one of the most important things they (the Iraqis) will have gained is intellectual liberty and the possibility of a free media."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2942597.stm
Now this is a surprising report about the leftist liar (obviously a double-bluff):
The BBC's defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan has cast doubt on whether the missile that killed two journalists in Baghdad today was fired by a US tank, speculating that Iraqi soldiers may have launched the lethal attack.
The US military has admitted one of its tanks fired on the Palestine Hotel, the centre for most of the foreign media in the Iraqi capital
He added that after examining the scene he concluded it was virtually impossible for the US tank to have fired on the 15th floor room.
Ciar Byrne
Tuesday April 8, 2003
The BBC has hit back at government criticism of its coverage of the war in Iraq. The corporation's head of news strongly denied Downing Street's accusation that its reporting had been marred by biased journalism that has over-emphasised chaos in Iraqi cities.
'Even if looting was to be expected, it doesn't mean to say we should ignore it,' said Richard Sambrook. 'It is not just the BBC that has covered the street violence and looting. Many other international news organisations thought it an important story, too.'
Calls yesterday for the BBC to be more sensitive to the effect of its reports on the political situation and on the morale of the troops were also dismissed.
'I would be astonished if the army was swayed by particular reports,' said Sambrook. 'It is not the BBC's role to second-guess what the impact of its reports might be on anyone involved in the conflict.What is important is that reporters report what they see.'
...
Today programme presenter John Humphrys was quick to respond. 'We are not part of that propaganda war,' he said.
'We are meant to do what, in my view, Andrew Gilligan has done brilliantly over the past few weeks, at enormous personal risk, I might add, which is telling us what he sees and hears. He is not meant to say to himself, "I wonder whether they will approve of that in No 10".'
Gilligan, 34, has been in Baghdad since before the war started and joined the BBC in 1999 after five years on the Sunday Telegraph's foreign news desk and a stint as the newspaper's defence correspondent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4647394,00.html
The Telegraph is known for its right leaning-stance.
Your characterisation of the BBC as "a pack of liars, letting their hatred for America, and their leftist agenda control their news judgement" is total bullshit, and anyone with a scrap of sense (or who are familiar with the organisation) will tell you. I am proud that the media in my country are free to report matters as they see it, for the public interest. If they overstep the mark they are pulled up on it...
War news not biased, says ITC
Owen Gibson
Thursday June 19, 2003
Television watchdogs have thrown out all of the complaints they received about news bias during the Iraq war, including those against notoriously pro-war US channel Fox News.
Viewers had complained that Fox News broke the independent television commission's "due impartiality" rules throughout the conflict with its pro-war stance, which helped it leapfrog rival networks CNN and ABC News in the ratings.
But the ITC said it believed the channel, criticised for its cheerleading during the war, did not contrevene its regulations on impartiality.
It said its code requires broadcasters to show "due impartiality" but that it also makes it clear that the term "[due] should be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate... it does not mean that the broadcasters have to be absolutely neutral on every controversial view".
Fox's flag-waving patriotism was unrelenting throughout the conflict, from the reporters embedded with the American "heroes" and "liberators" on the front line in Iraq to the Rumsfeld-lauding talk show hosts back at New York HQ.
Fox's star interviewer, Bill O'Reilly, told viewers the US should go in and "splatter" the Iraqis, while reporters also railed against anti-war protesters over footage of Saddam's statue being pulled down when US troops entered Baghdad.
Now this is a surprising report about the leftist liar (obviously a double-bluff):
A surprising report about a leftist lier from an organization that is notoriously left and has itself been caught lying, diseeminating Iraqi propoganda as news and purposefully not reporting Iraqi violations and war crimes so as to maintain a 'presence' in Iraq. They're in good company though, CNN and Reuters do the same thing.
He added that after examining the scene he concluded it was virtually impossible for the US tank to have fired on the 15th floor room.
Interesting, he came to the same conclusion as many other reporters and the US investigative team.
'I would be astonished if the army was swayed by particular reports,' said Sambrook. 'It is not the BBC's role to second-guess what the impact of its reports might be on anyone involved in the conflict.What is important is that reporters report what they see.'
Obviously Sambrook is unaware of the demoralizing effect constant negative reporting has on his own side, and the positive morale effect such reporting has historically had on the enemy. Such as the newsreel footage of peace demonstrations that were brought into Vietnam by the Chinese to boost the morale of the NVA. As to the last sentence, I guess he was unaware that a BBC reporter in Baghdad had already admitted to not reporting that Saddam had stationed missiles in residential neighborhoods since she didn't think it was newsworthy that Saddam was lying about it.
our characterisation of the BBC as "a pack of liars, letting their hatred for America, and their leftist agenda control their news judgement" is total bullshit, and anyone with a scrap of sense (or who are familiar with the organisation) will tell you.
Really? So Gilligan lying about the Americans at Baghdad airport was what? How about his lying about American forays into the heart of Baghdad? All he did was parrot Iraqi propoganda as news.
You'll also note that he lied about his source on the 'sexed-up' story claiming that his source was a highly placed member of British intelligence who turned out to be a scientist consultant for the agency.
War news not biased, says ITC
Ummmmmmm, they decided that Fox News was not biased because it actually presented both sides of issues. But then their opinion is rather suspect considering they also decided that Al-Jazheera and Al-Arabiya were un-biased, so it is clear that they simply rubber-stamped everyone.
Fox's flag-waving patriotism was unrelenting throughout the conflict, from the reporters embedded with the American "heroes" and "liberators" on the front line in Iraq to the Rumsfeld-lauding talk show hosts back at New York HQ. None of which means that any valid counter argument was not broadcast. In fact Fox routinely broadcasts views and opinions that are opposite to 'flag-waving patirotism.'
Fox's star interviewer, Bill O'Reilly, told viewers the US should go in and "splatter" the Iraqis, while reporters also railed against anti-war protesters over footage of Saddam's statue being pulled down when US troops entered Baghdad.
First off O'Reilly's show is a News/OPINION show and that is clearly stated often on that news show, it does not tout itself as simple news-reading. As to Fox's treatment of the anti-war folk, Fox was one of the few agencies questioning their motive and even though it did provide a soap-box for them it also asked many hard questions of both sides. It's just that anti-war/anti-American groups such as ANSWER aren't used to people questioning their motives, their funding, or their many connections to Stalinist groups. In the same way they asked Wolfowitz hard questions they asked Saudi, Palestinian and Iraqi spokesmen hard question. Can anyone recall other news sources that did the same? Most ask a hard question and allow the guest to go off on a tangent never answering the question. Though that happens on Fox, it happens far less often.
Here's an aside to the bias at both the BBC and Reuters. The BBC refused to tell the truth about terrorist organizations and continuously refer to terrorist forces as militants. On the plus side at least it's no longer their stated policy (though it is still their prevelant practice) whereas it is still Reuters policy.
Oh hey, you know what would finally convince me that the BBC is not biased? When they actually stop being biased. Yesterday's purposeful misquote of Blair, that casts him in as bad a light as possible, just continues their reputation.
Kal
"I use the word legitimate in its defined senses"
There is no "legitimate" scientific issue with GM foods, as you pointed out. It is just that Europeans are quite happy to let Africans starve to protect their farmers. You should just remember that your preaching about concern for the Iraqi people, and your opposition to the war to free them as "illegitimate" rings hollow this side of the pond.
As for your post, Kal did a pretty good job. What you posted was a series of OPINIONS that agreed with you. I can go out and get a series of OPINION pieces that agree with me. Neither would prove anything. But as for my charge that the BBC is infested with liars in some cases and are driven by a leftist agenda, to prove this, I only need examples, so here goes:
Kal already referred to some of these.
"Then, as now, the Taliban bemoaned the supposed lack of evidence coming from the Americans. Indeed, the main Taliban spokesman at the time, Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, even claimed that the Taliban intelligence service was in charge of keeping bin Laden under wraps. The source of this important report? The BBC.
Daniel Lak's incredible statement was not just designed to make the Taliban seem reasonable, it staked out the standard rhetoric of the antiwar movement, that America is always wrong. According to Lak, for the Taliban: "Very little, outside of the strictures of Islam, is set in stone. But America's demands seem to be. They are not negotiating; they are demanding — and promising certain retaliation if they don't get their way."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-apostolou100901.shtml
Boy, we sure were nasty demanding they hand over bin Laden or else.
The Beeb and Blair:
'Mr Blair, who said his appetite for power remained "undiminished" ' -- BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3106857.stm
Actual words of Blair:
"There is a big job of work to do - my appetite for doing it is undiminished."
I know you will tell me with a straight face that this is a fair summary of Blair's words, but we both know that the words were chosen to distort Blair's meaning, and to put him in a bad light.
But lets move foreward to the Iraqi conflict
The fall of the Bagdhad Airport per the BBC.
'Baghdad :: Andrew Gilligan :: 1513GMT
Within the last 90 minutes I've been at the airport. There is simply no truth in the claims that American troops are surrounding it.
We could drive up to it quite easily. The airport is under full Iraqi control.
There is normal civilian traffic on the road to the airport and the soldiers defending it looked pretty relaxed.
They certainly weren't in defensive positions. They were standing around casually on the side of the road.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2912253.stm
Of course viewers of Fox could clearly see that the US forces had taken the airport.
The next day, Gilligan again:
'Andrew Gilligan, the BBC’s man in downtown Baghdad. "I’m in the center of Baghdad," said a very dubious Gilligan, "and I don’t see anything…But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." Gilligan was referring to a military communiqué from Qatar the day before saying the Americans had taken control of most of Baghdad’s airport. When that happened, Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren’t. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying.'
Once again, veiwers of Fox News would have seen the true state of affairs well before those of the BBC.
Of course, we are expected to overlook these lapses in judgement on the part of Gilligan, and his obvious cheerleading for Saddam's army of torturers, in the tradition of the BBC's rooting for the Taliban and bin Laden in 2001. But then, what should show up to bring Gilligan's credibility into doubt again but this:
'A letter written by David Kelly two weeks before he died called into question the honesty of the BBC journalist at the heart of the dossier row.
He suggested that Today programme reporter Andrew Gilligan might have "considerably embellished" the truth in the story which sparked the furore.'
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/6042203?source=Evening%20Standard
I could go on for a lot longer. There is a lot of criticism of the BBC's war coverage to draw from.
"Your characterisation of the BBC as "a pack of liars, letting their hatred for America, and their leftist agenda control their news judgement" is total bullshit"
I have just shown that it is not.
Spawn you are becoming a bore..
If you read down my comments and responses re. GMO foods you will see, nowhere did i even intimate "There is no "legitimate" scientific issue with GM foods, as you pointed out."
If your being purposefully deceitful then shame on you.
If not, take a bit of time to read other peoples posts and consider your own response, please.
To quote Spawn:
"What you posted was a series of OPINIONS that agreed with you. I can go out and get a series of OPINION pieces that agree with me. Neither would prove anything. But as for my charge that the BBC is infested with liars in some cases and are driven by a leftist agenda, to prove this, I only need examples, so here goes:"
Spawn then proceeds to list a few selected opinions.
Brilliant.
As you must be aware, Kalroy
Reporters in Baghdad when Saddam's regime were monitored, thye simply could not report everything they wanted to.
All reporters are going to report the information released by an Information ministry, even one as unreliable as the Iraqi.
It is possible for reporters to be tricked in the same way as anyone else if they are in an unfamiliar environment.
I don't really feel the need to repudiate your vague sense of the corporation as biased though, you fail to provide any evidence of institutional bias. The BBC is a huge corporation, and it is very well-respected almost universally.
"Spawn you are becoming a bore.."
On the GM foods, yes I am, I am as much as a bore as you Europeans claiming compassion for the Iraqis. Your worship of the word "legitimate" is boring,disingenuous, and self-serving.
"Spawn then proceeds to list a few selected opinions."
Deny, deny, deny...
"The Beeb and Blair:
'Mr Blair, who said his appetite for power remained "undiminished" ' -- BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3106857.stm
Actual words of Blair:
"There is a big job of work to do - my appetite for doing it is undiminished."
This is not an opinion, it is a set of facts. You do not feel the need to respond, how convenient. There is another fact presented of Gilligan calling the Americans liars before he knew the facts. Then you place faith in his word against Tony Blair's when I have given you an example, there are others, of the BBC distorting Blair's words. You can't respond.
"The BBC is a huge corporation, and it is very well-respected almost universally."
This is the argument of Europeans on most issues: 'A lot of people agree with me, so I must be right, facts aren't that important'. You don't "feel the need to respond" because you cant.
I can see why your shrink from the task however, the stories are getting worse for your BBC.
Today's financial times:
'Lord Hutton revealed fresh evidence on Friday that suggests a clear conflict between accounts given by Andrew Gilligan, the BBC Today reporter, and by David Kelly, his main source.'
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059478658250
Denial is the longest river in the world, Luke, and you are swimming in it.
Spawn you're a bore becuase you misrepresent other peoples arguments, in order to try to score easy points.
I also noted how you are hoist on your own petard re. your criticism of the BBC.
Reporters in Baghdad when Saddam's regime were monitored, thye simply could not report everything they wanted to.
The young BBC reporter who saw the missiles in a residential neighborhood did not have a minder along with her. She made a specific point of mentioning that along with her belief that it was because she had engendered trust between her and the regime.
Both CNN and the BBC have admitted that they failed to report atrocities and that they reported Iraqi points verbatim to maintain their presence in Iraq. Reporting them would have lost them access to Iraq and the regime. They chose access over accuracy and chose not to report heinous acts.
It is possible for reporters to be tricked in the same way as anyone else if they are in an unfamiliar environment.
Of course it is. The point isn't that they were fooled into thinking Saddam was a nice guy, the point is they refused to report the truth to further their careers and their ratings.
I don't really feel the need to repudiate your vague sense of the corporation as biased though, you fail to provide any evidence of institutional bias. The BBC is a huge corporation, and it is very well-respected almost universally.
You're partially right. I did allude to the latest BBC bias regarding Blair. It was Spawn who provided the reference and the actual words. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read that part, or simply chose to ignore it. The BBC is biased despite your unfounded claim to the contrary. It is so bad that even a British ship (Arkinholm?) has refused to show it anymore.
It is bad enough that the British government is still investigating the BBC's bias and there are web sites documenting instance after instance of blatant bias. In the US we have a number of sites that monitor and record countless examples of bias of our own media, but those outlets, like you, refuse to believe the evidence before their eyes.
The New York Times has consistently denied the charge of bias despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. They continue to deny it even though they've hired an ombudsman to monitor their bias.
Kal
Luther: If you read down my comments and responses re. GMO foods you will see, nowhere did i even intimate "There is no "legitimate" scientific issue with GM foods, as you pointed out."
I think there's a bit of a confusion here. Spawn didn't accuse you of saying "There is no "legitimate" scientific issue with GM foods, as you pointed out." Those were his words. Spawn quoted you as saying "There had been a moratorium on GMO crops for a while in Britain and other countries to allow legitimate scientific concerns to be addressed."
Kal
F****** semantics regarding GMOs. I already showed that my use of the word legitimate was... appropriate.
The BBC is composed of individual journalists.
The Independent Television Commission ruled there was no need for overseas channels to be completely balanced in their reporting, as long as they represented a range of views in their entire schedule.
It said it accepted that "overseas channels will sometimes view events from their own particular perspective" and that was within the rules as long as "differing opinions are also acknowledged on the service."
Impartiality is not required in every programme as long as a broadcaster can show impartiality "over time".
It said it accepted that "overseas channels will sometimes view events from their own particular perspective" and that was within the rules as long as "differing opinions are also acknowledged on the service."
Impartiality is not required in every programme as long as a broadcaster can show impartiality "over time".
I read the story when it came out. I don't believe that the ITC acted honestly because it also claimed that it had found no problem with al-Jazheera or Al-Arabiya. Neither of these services provide impartiality "over time." Considering that I believe the ITC played politics over veracity in its findings.
Kal
Rubbish.
Why on earth should it?
Why should it play politics? I don't know, but can you come up with a reason why the ITC would give a pass to Al-Jazheera and Al-Arabiya despite their proven reputation?
I don't believe that the ITC supports the point of view promulgated by those views, nor do I believe that the ITC considers re-prints of The Protocols of Zion and spreading the myth that Jews use Christian and Muslim blood to cook with. Because of that I don't believe that the ITC actually considers those views to be un-biased (especially considering the long-term lack of any counter view).
If you can come up with an explanation of why the ITC rubber-stamped all the news organizations that it investigated I'd love to hear it.
Kal
Luther,
I am done arguing, and Kal is doing a great job of flaying you on the BBC. He is right too, the web is full of sites that FACTUALLY monitor BBC distorions and misquotes, so he will run out of patience arguing with a deaf man long before he runs out of material.
I argue to learn and understand, and I think that I have gained an understanding from the way you, Marc, et al argue into the way you think. Which is all I really care about.
The issue that I have tried to explore, through arguing over Iraq, the BBC, GMO, The precautionary principle, the semantics of "legitimate", and Kyoto is why Europeans tend to hold counterfactual positions almost unanimously. It isn't like there is a shortage of facts on the other side.
I think that you are trapped in Groupthink, this occured to me yesterday after reading your last response.
Some symptoms of groupthink are:
Rationalizing poor decisions
Believing in the group's morality
Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision
Exercising direct pressure on others
Maintaining an illusion of unanimity
Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information
The 'Mindguards' part is particularly interesting:
"Mindguards: Lastly, victims of groupthink sometimes appoint themselves as mindguards to protect the leader and fellow members from adverse information that might break the complacency they shared about the effectiveness and morality of past decisions."
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scie/Career/Wisdom/groupthink1.htm
Let's look at your counterarguments.
"This site is racist"
"Spawn, your becoming a bore"
"lots of people whom lots of other people respect agree with me.." not a quote, but a summarization.
These are attempts to appeal to group dynamics rather than logic to end debate. it is as if you believe that objective truth is socially constructed. What does "legitimate" mean but an agreed upon truth?
I apologize if I misrepresented your views on GMOs by not clearly stating my argument, but I also think that it is significant that you claim that there are scientific arguments, yet fail to name one. It is almost as if you take their existence on faith.
Several times you charictarize my posts as this or that, but do not support your opinion in any way beyond pointing to other people's opinion that your opinion is right. I could give examples, but what's the use? You would ignore them.
Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you go ahead and call me a liar, and don't respond to the latest news on Gilligan, who was protected at the highest levels by the BBC, and to pretend that you have "hoisted my on my own petard".
This thread is going nowhere in the department of increased understanding. Just be warned, social pressure does not work the same on the internet as it does in a society as class concious as that of the UK.
The BBC will be reformed, whether you think it needs it or not. Sites like Pave France will continue to criticize the sacred cows of Europeans. You may as well, like King Kanute (sp?) order the tide to stop. But even he knew that it would not.
