And they impeached Clinton for what?

[Astrocreep]

My opinion? American will stay its proxy war with African warstates for sometime. The Middle-east and Africa will probably be the last places before the World is unified in a world government(s), sometime down the road.

You dont see Putin's russia or Chavez's attempt at consolidation of south america as a future threat?

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

No, why is competition only good in the market place? Besides, I'm all for socialism wherever it goes! Especially South America - Brazil here I come!

[Itzena]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Khorum i think the way the libs explain away all the uranium and other nuclear centrifuges and stuff was that it wasnt yet weaponized or some bullshit. BTW the whole joe wilson Iraq was looking for yellowcake bit was not only confirmed true by the brits but also the russians so we are well beyond the president lied people died, war for oil bullshit.
BTW we were in africa under clinton , go watch Black Hawk down and Hotel Rwanda for the reasons why we left there .

In case you hadn't noticed Blair lost his job (eventually) over the shit that he asked MI6 to make up for him re: WMD

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Itzena

In case you hadn't noticed Blair lost his job (eventually) over the shit that he asked MI6 to make up for him re: WMD

Any documentation on this? I skimmed several wikipedia articles on the guy and there's just a blurb about how there was controversy in the UK about not actually finding the WMD's they were looking for (this was in '03 and '04), yet the guy was re-elected in '05.

[Believe]

Originally Posted by Itzena

In case you hadn't noticed Blair lost his job (eventually) over the shit that he asked MI6 to make up for him re: WMD

And now he's the Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia...

[Soriak]

Err, Khorum: your quotes above are from the "al Jazeera Magazine" which is somewhat misleading as people usually think of the TV channel when they hear "Al Jazeera" - the magazine has no connections to the channel.

From the About section of the magazine:

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with any of the below organisations:

1. Al Jazeera Newspaper, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia whose website is al-jazirah.com
2. Al Jazeera Satellite Channel whose website is aljazeera.net.
3. Al Jazeera Information Centre who website is aljazeerah.info

english.aljazeera.net is the english site of the TV channel.

[Khorum]

Oh so the english Al Jazeera magazine are all pro-Bush now? It doesn't take but half a cursory look around that magazine site to see exactly in how much regard they hold Bush and the west. Hmm, I dunno man, even NPR is going bullish on the war, want me to stick to bloggers then?

EDIT: BTW, I DID link Al Jazeera videos, as in from the actual al-Jazeera channel, in Grobbee's other anti-war thread in the TV forum. I'll cut and paste them later.

[Soriak]

I'm just saying, people who don't check the link may think it's the Al Jazeera TV channel, which actually has a very good reputation. The magazine, on the other hand, is junk with a "conspiracy theories" section on the front page.

[Khorum]

A VERY good reputation for whom?! For radical anti-American victimologists? For unconditional appeasers? LOL are you nuts? This is a perfect example of you incrementalists assuming the inevitability of your own delusions then getting pussyhurt when it turns out that OH! socialism isn't a mainstream ideology, whoooops.

Here's YOUR al Jazeera clip insisting that while Al Anbar has "no doubt" improved for the better it had nothing to do with American forces--even though they craftily edit an Anbari sheikh crediting American troops and even though the surge strategy focusing on engaging local sheikhs was published in December last year.

[Slide]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Here's YOUR al Jazeera clip insisting that while Al Anbar has "no doubt" improved for the better it had nothing to do with American forces--even though they craftily edit an Anbari sheikh crediting American troops and even though the surge strategy focusing on engaging local sheikhs was published in December last year.

Like CNN or NBC are paragons of journalistic integrity. I didnt see anything particularly wrong with that report - of course its been spun to fuck and targetting its audience but no worse than any other news outlet.

[Khorum]

Well Soriak was busy shitting on Al Jazeera magazine--a publication by british muslims--for some imagined injury to his rapidly eroding confidence about the outcome of the war. That magazine, in fact, takes more snipes at the right than the Al Jazeera channel itself, and is a favorite haunt of the Mossad-9/11 conspiracy left. But the moment they publish an article that breaks ranks with the progressive "Iraq must fail" front suddenly they're repudiated and unreliable. Awesome.

And no, I don't watch FOX or CNN at all and I disagree with anyone who thinks CNN is more balanced, noone who has Glenn Beck on the payroll can even pretend to be balanced, but the moment anyone links anything other than the usual leftist rags around here, the sandier cooters start weeping blood.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Khorum

A VERY good reputation for whom?! For radical anti-American victimologists? For unconditional appeasers? LOL are you nuts? This is a perfect example of you incrementalists assuming the inevitability of your own delusions then getting pussyhurt when it turns out that OH! socialism isn't a mainstream ideology, whoooops.

So wait, Al jazeera is a Socialist propaganda tool now? Have you actually watched the channel once, other than those short clips on youtube? Not to mention you can actually watch the channel and feel you're watching news, not an advertisement channel. CNN seems to air 50/50 news/ads and my time is too valuable for that.

Here's YOUR al Jazeera clip insisting that while Al Anbar has "no doubt" improved for the better it had nothing to do with American forces--even though they craftily edit an Anbari sheikh crediting American troops and even though the surge strategy focusing on engaging local sheikhs was published in December last year.

This is the most biased report you could come up with? Local people and the interviewed US colonel say community leaders stepped up, which is responsible for the improvement. Horribly biased with secret cues to all the socialist viewers?

Well Soriak was busy shitting on Al Jazeera magazine--a publication by british muslims--for some imagined injury to his rapidly eroding confidence about the outcome of the war. That magazine, in fact, takes more snipes at the right than the Al Jazeera channel itself, and is a favorite haunt of the Mossad-9/11 conspiracy left. But the moment they publish an article that breaks ranks with the progressive "Iraq must fail" front suddenly they're repudiated and unreliable. Awesome.

What do I care what the "Mossad-9/11 conspiracy" nutjobs think? Yes, the magazine snipes at the US and the ongoing war, this doesn't equal journalistic quality. I don't watch news for "snipes" at the "other" side, I want to get, you know, actual news.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Soriak

I don't watch news for "snipes" at the "other" side, I want to get, you know, actual news.

Lol yeah ok. Is that why you keep such close tabs on MediaMatters talking points about GOP candidates tripping up in the press? Is that why you so eagerly start those liberal strokefest threads whenever a conservative notion pops up that tickles your hair-trigger leftist sensibilities?

And yes, I've watched Al Jazeera in English and very often in Arabic (long story, don't ask). And if you think they have a "GREAT" reputation amongst folks other than the choir they've been preaching to for years, you're either deluding yourself or you're being deliberately specious. In fact that Al Jazeera video I linked up there, which does portray the positive gains in Iraq in as mealy-mouthed and evasive fashion imaginable, was the last we heard about al Anbar until the bombings in Ramadi yesterday---and that video was from September 10th. Yeah, the muslim enclaves in the UK, and the USA really don't need to hear about how the province that used to be the capital of Al Qaeda is now offering free busrides for refugees wanting to return home. Clearly Ahmedinejad's most recent diatribe justifying the Islamic Revolution's nuclear ambition is of more importance.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Lol yeah ok. Is that why you keep such close tabs MediaMatters talking points about GOP candidates tripping up in the press? Is that why you so eagerly start those liberal strokefest threads whenever a conservative notion pops up that tickles your hair-trigger leftist sensibilities?

No, I make fun of statements because some of them are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I don't care who made them, or what party he or she belongs to - not like I get excited thinking about Hillary Clinton in the White House. Unbiased news doesn't mean being soft on everyone though, it means calling everyone out equally. Maybe the "non-partisan" organizations that do it are just all liberals, but there'd have to be a conservative equivalent? Preferably one that goes after content and not Obama not wearing a US flag pin once. (which clearly means he hates America and doesn't support the troops!)


Here's a very positive article on Iraq from a few days ago, btw: Al Jazeera English - News - Ex-Allies 'Fight Al-Qaeda In Iraq'

[Khorum]

Yeah I linked that article in the FOX news TV forum thread, even though it was technically about Diyala. I meant their TV coverage (under english at least) the last I've heard was that bit in September, a few things about Kurdistan, that diyalla blurb and then the Ramadi bombings from the last few days. Can't embed it though.