Liberals read this.

[Qwazy Wabbit]

As they say, the 'right' side is the one that wins. That's the only clear cut thing about it.

[Vincent]

You missed the whole point, didn't you?

No one I have seen on this site listens or reads and takes the info in. No opinions change. People just look for confirmation of their beleifs and ignore all evidence or ideas that challenge them.

At least you are capable of irony.

My whole issue with the press is they are never neutral.

So what? And there's no Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and sometimes politicians don't act for noble reasons. Grow up.

a network had the power to stop it but they were being impartial.

It is no more a network's responsibility to stop insurgent attacks than it is for a network to stop coalition attacks. They are there to get a story, not act as advocates.

glamourise the insurgency

Who has done this?

[Mikethehack]

My whole issue with the press is they are never neutral.

Never say never.

[Johnno]

It is no more a network's responsibility to stop insurgent attacks than it is for a network to stop coalition attacks. They are there to get a story, not act as advocates.

This is an insurgency war. The inurgents are not fighting for freedom or to overthrow a dictator. They are fighting for the right to impose brutal rule over the citizens.

Why is there there a right and wrong at home with murder, or as RYP said what timothy mcveigh did but not in iraq. If a member of the press was in position to film the oklahoma bombing with prior knowledge but did not report it would you say the same? What if your family or friends where in there? Still ok to film and report after? What if the money for the bomb was paid by the network?

[goat balls]

My whole issue with the press is they are never neutral.

Never say never.

You are oh so correct. They are never neutral. But they loudly claim that they are, which makes me and apparently a lot of other people very pissed....hence their continuous downward ratings spiral.

I couldn't believe that Andrew Hayward came out and admitted that this is happening and that CBS needs to change to a FOX type format...with a left bias.

[Vincent]

The inurgents are not fighting for freedom

Says you. And me. But it's not our country we're talking about. Again, you assume the best intentions of those who are about to take power. To many Sunnis in Iraq, we are helping establish brutal Shiite rule over them.

Why is there there a right and wrong at home with murder, or as RYP said what timothy mcveigh did but not in iraq.

Again with the irony!!! Don't you know that Timothy McVeigh helped kill plenty of people in Kuwait and Iraq, but it wasn't a problem until he did it at home.

If a member of the press was in position to film the oklahoma bombing with prior knowledge but did not report it would you say the same? What if your family or friends where in there? Still ok to film and report after?

Do not realize the disparity in the comparisons you are making? In Oklahoma City, it was a criminal attacking and killing unarmed civilians. The situation in Iraq is that there are insurgents fighting a foreign power. That is the fact .

If someone has prior knowledge of a criminal act, I believe they have an obligation to report it.

[el3so]

My whole issue with the press is they are never neutral.

Never say never.

Johnno, ask yourself this: does a vulture care wether the corpse he's picking at was a member of PETA or of the NRA?

The human carrion comparison may offer some solace or some cheap giggles, but I do not despise or hate media people.

Grim, ghoulish and gory as it may seem at times esp to those directly affected by or even being the protagonists of the "story" covered, they only do their job.


As for "why" the insurgents are fighting:
I truely believe their personal motives aren't too different from the many members (both civilian and military) of the Coalition of the Willing.
Since none of all the folks "in country" on both sides actually make policy (human interest stories excluded) I will continue to judge them by their actions rather than by the double-speak of their masters and their mouth-pieces.

[Buzzsaw]

As for "why" the insurgents are fighting:
I truely believe their personal motives aren't too different from the many members (both civilian and military) of the Coalition of the Willing.
Since none of all the folks "in country" on both sides actually make policy (human interest stories excluded) I will continue to judge them by their actions rather than by the double-speak of their masters and their mouth-pieces.

If you have time, can you elaborate on this. I don't really get the meaning. You truly believe that the personal motives of the insurgents are the same as those trying to stop them?

[Mikethehack]

This is an insurgency war. The inurgents are not fighting for freedom

To use an old quote I heard a long time ago:
"You dare to call me a terrorist while you stand with that gun in your hand."
In other words,one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This is all just an accident (maybe the good fortune) of birth. We could be having this arguement in another life (and from another perspective) if this was the Black Jihadi Flag and the vast majority of the posters here were of the muslim faith.

I'm sure exactly the same is happening on islamic forums somewhere on the net and I'd be delighted if someone could point in the direction of one that is similar to this place but where they have a marginally (not radically) different set of posters. In other words, not so many western whiteys. And I'm not on about the LP site either.

[el3so]

I truely believe their personal motives aren't too different from the many members (both civilian and military) of the Coalition of the Willing.

You truly believe that the personal motives of the insurgents are the same as those trying to stop them?

Trying to stop who from doing what exactly? ;-)

I hate second-guessing other people, but:
yes, I do think a somewhat similar rationale has both private Dogface going on patrols daily and has friendly-neighbourhood terrorist Ali taking a one-way trip to Iraq. Some belief of their way of life being the best, some urge to do their part in the bigger struggle and some practical considerations.

As for the locals involved:
yes, I do think there are things both more mundane and more elevated at stake than mere "freedom-hating" in the choice of wether one joins the new Iraqi Police Force or the local band of insurgents.

All sides i this conflict preferr using force to further their goals and (like I said in my previous post) the goals of the parties aren't necessarily quite the same as the goals of the members of those parties.

[Buzzsaw]

But as far as I understand it, the insurgents are repeatedly attacking civilians, police and interfering with the democratic process adn the establishment of a stable country, while Private Dogface is attacking the insurgents. These motives seem pretty different to me.

[Johnno]

Excactly. The motives for the insurgents are many and diverse but very few are fighting for anything idealistic by any standards. If you think its ok to target civilians trying to vote or just go about their lives then there is no point arguing further.

For those who still think its fine if they believe that they are overthrowing an evil rule by america then tell me: How would you feel if gun laws were changed in the US, and American militants, fearing no guns would weaken American to a russian invasion decide to kill any politician they can find and anyone handing guns in to collection points. Would you, after your son/brother/sister etc was killed by them, consider them legitimate freedom fighters? If they were fighting for a cause they believe in?
Just like the KKK. Does anyone consider them freedom fighters? I doubt anyone here so callously comparing a US marine to an insurgent as two sides of the same coin feels the KKK is a legitimate freedom fighting organisation, similar in many ways to the police.

Do not realize the disparity in the comparisons you are making? In Oklahoma City, it was a criminal attacking and killing unarmed civilians.

Yes, my point exactly. You think the insurgents differentiate? The number that do is insignificant compared to the overall number. If you consider insurgetns willing to kill unarmed westerners trying to rebuild the country and provide services for all of iraq the number drops to zero. If NGO's were to wander around alone without security giving aid they would be killed, kidnapped and/or beheaded. Several people naieve enough to think they wont be hurt if they are unthreatening and unarmed have been killed or captured, including a woman working for USAID whos only crime was to think that having security was intimidating to the locals.

But hey, if your a reporter after a story and either the KKK or some sunni militants are going to bomb some police or civilians, throw them some cash jump on for the ride, maybe throw them some cash for a bigger bomb, dont warn anyone and start filming. There are plenty who will call it good neutral journalism.

[ROB]

Was it wrong of the French resistance to target both Nazis and collaborators?

[coldharvest]

repeatedly attacking civilians, police and interfering with the democratic process adn the establishment of a stable country,

Isn't that sort of what America did when they invaded Iraq?
Unlike Hugo, Saddam was an ideal candidate for a 1/2 mile love-letter.

[Haydon 5]

Was it wrong of the French resistance to target both Nazis and collaborators?

It certanly was not in accordance with the laws of war (I know I'll catch flak for say that - but its true).

Additionally the fact that the insurgences target civilians (voters waiting to vote) unrelated to enforcement of the law (such as Iraqi Police and US trained Iraqi Military) makes the question of the insurgency's legitimacy questionable, and more than a simple Freedom fighter/Terrorist analysis.