Demonstration in Iraq vs. Liberation of Iraq...

I don't see how your post is at all relevant to the OP. But, admittedly, Zhimbo was not explicit as to his point, so maybe I am the one who doesn't understand what his point was.Perhaps you can tell us what you think Zhimbo's point is, and how your comments clarify or refute his position.

quote:

---

Zhimbo's op appears to me to suggest that when the US "controls" rallys/protests/marches that the event is "Pro USA," and when the US doesn't "control" the event it is "Anti US."

---

That's interesting. The implication I got from his post was that that one, specific demonstration was orchestrated by the US, and that when US officials or their proxies are not involved in organizing, the demonstrations call for an end to the US occupation.I guess Zhimbo is the only one who can tell us for certain what his point was.--

quote:

---

Doesn't clarify what the "Anti US" rally was about and implies that it is a "hate america" rally.

---

Actually, I thought the implication was that it was an anti-US occupation rally. That there were additional issues in addition to opposition to the US occupation is an important clarification. Thank you.

quote:

---

Here's what really happened.

---

How do you know what really happened?The Znet article mentioned the official US response: What is your source, and why do you consider them less biased than Znet?

quote:

---

If the Znet story were accurate, then it would have been reported on by news agencies (CNN, Fox, BBC, Hell..Al Jazera).

---

I doubt this; I don't recall these agencies pointing out that the "evidence" the administration was using to promote the accusation of WMD in Iraq was unreliable and probably false.Going back further in time, during the 1980's I don't recall these news agencies pointing out that the elections held by the Sandanistas in Nicaragua were free and fair and well within accepted standards for democratic elections; nor do I remember them pointing out that the US backed Contras were basically a terrorist organization.Not so far back in time, I recall, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, a lot of talk about consensual sex; I don't recall much, if any, reports in the media about the charges that Clinton committed perjury during an investigation of a sexual harrassment case that had merit.Not that I want this thread to go off-topic -- just that I don't think what the media chooses to report and what it does not is a reliable indicator of what is actually happening.

Thanks, mick.I am still interested in hearing Tal tell how, in view of conficting reports of the facts, how one determines which one is reliable and which one is not.As far as I can determine, all the eye witness reports indicate that the Iraqi parliamentarian was abused. The only report that the Iraqi was at fault was from the organization that allegedly did the abusing. When did it become reasonable to simply accept the word of someone who has a vested interest in your belief in what they are saying?

quote:

---

I guess you'll just have to trust me....

---

May I ask what would motivate this trust? Let me bring back the point of my initial post to you.The original post was: When I asked how your response to this was relevant, you replied to me: Now, I personally do not see these implications at all in Zhimbo's initial post. The conclusion I come to (and you may reply to these charges) is that you find criticisms of US policy to be "Anti-US", and that critics of the US "hate america". I feel that this is sufficient reason to suspect that you allow your personal feelings and beliefs to cloud your judgement, and that you might have difficulty distinguishing objective reporting from propaganda.But perhaps your choice of "anti-US" and "hate america" were merely hyperbole on your part, and I am rashly basing my opinion on speech that is not necessarily indicative of your beliefs.

quote:

---

What probably happened is some soldier f***ed up, and now hes getting off with a slap on the wrist for his actions, but letting the US war hating world throw the book at a nervous teenager with a rifle thousands of miles away from home wouldn't be right either.

---

What in the world are you talking about? Who's talking about coming down hard on people who, against their own wishes, have been put into a miserable situation, are in constant danger for their lives, and are reacting according to this fear?What we are talking about is that the American people know very little about what is actually going on in Iraq.What we are talking about is that the entire invasion was unjustified and against international law.What we are talking about is that the political leaders responsible for giving the orders for an illegal and unjustified war are directly responsible for the war crimes, atrocities, and even honest accidents that have occurred as a result.I'm not advocating "throwing the book at a scared kid". I'm saying the entire Bush administration should be shipped en masse to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

quote:

---

I am still interested in hearing Tal tell how, in view of conficting reports of the facts, how one determines which one is reliable and which one is not.

​

Hopefully I've clarified that in the above post(s).

---

No, the posts above didn't seem to answer my question at all. But I may be exceptionally dense.