Win a copy of Five Lines of Code this week in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Paul Clapham
Sheriffs:
  • Tim Cooke
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • fred rosenberger
  • salvin francis
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Frits Walraven
  • Carey Brown

America bashing

 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe, replies as "you just don't want to hear what I have to say, do you?" do not make our conversation friendlier and frankly, they do not help me to hear you.
"Just about every one of your sources has a decided leftist bent" -- I can agree with that. Does "leftist" means "anti-American"? Does anti-Bush means "anti-American"? What about anti-Clinton?
Fair.org - Norman Solomon is a personal friend of my former teacher, and she is the best person I've ever met, this added some credibility to the site, or, perhaps, skewed my perceptions, I do not know. From reading their stuff I did not notice they are particularly anti-Bush.
"You don't do research except in sources that agree with your predisposition; that's really not particularly useful" -- you probably wanted to say that I do not quote alternative sources. This doesn't mean I do not read them, I do, at least I try.
It doesn't bother you that Jason has some predispositions to conservative sources, does it? It doesn't bother me. I would be surprised if he started to type out quotes from Noam Chomsky. I think, it's Ok that we all have our own set of predispositions.
If you think it's only me whose reading diet is so unbalanced, check this thread, it's interesting.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map, you wanted to know why I feel the way I do. It's because you consistently quote sources that have an entirely leftist and, to me, unpatriotic leaning. These sources do not provide alternaet solutions, they simply attack the current administration. This is incidentally the same issue I called you on - attacking someone's position without providing an alternate solution.
That's what I hate, Map.
Joe
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
It doesn't bother you that Jason has some predispositions to conservative sources, does it? It doesn't bother me. I would be surprised if he started to type out quotes from Noam Chomsky. I think, it's Ok that we all have our own set of predispositions.


I think if you'll go back through the links I offer to back up arguments of mine, you will likely find "liberal" sources of news offered (BBC, New York Times, etc...) as often as "conservative" sources (National Review, etc...).
Btw Map, The Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, are all generally considered news sources with a definite liberal bent.
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Btw Map, The Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, are all generally considered news sources with a definite liberal bent.
Especially by those with a rightist bent. (Mmm, relativism!)
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I think if you'll go back through the links I offer to back up arguments of mine, you will likely find "liberal" sources of news offered (BBC, New York Times, etc...) as often as "conservative" sources (National Review, etc...).
Btw Map, The Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, are all generally considered news sources with a definite liberal bent.


It is "generally considered" that the The Washington Post and New York Times are "liberal" newspapers? By whom? I find it interesting that "conservatives" say these newspapers are "liberal", and "liberals" state that they are "conservative". So, who's right? Or is that even the point? I, for the life of me, still can't fathom what purpose this separation serves. I never understood it when I came to this country, and I still don't understand it.
Joe Conason, author of the best-selling new book ´┐ŻBig Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How it Distorts the Truth" and editor-at-large at The New York Observer recently stated in an interview that he feels both these news publications have become decidedly more "conversative", yet I'm sure that others, mostly "conservatives", would disagree.
I have watched in utter dismay certain truths get warped by members of both these supposed political ideologies, seeking to one-up each other incessantly. It's almost pathetic to witness.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Btw Map, The Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, are all generally considered news sources with a definite liberal bent.
Especially by those with a rightist bent. (Mmm, relativism!)


I disagree. I think it likely that a truly centrist observer comes to the same conclusion. If one were not looking at this objectively, then one would likely not recognize where there were news sources with a more conservative bent. I don't know much about the LA and NY news markets, but I can tell you that The Washington Times is a DC vicinity paper with a conservative bent to it. This does not mean that when these newspapers report news that it is "wrong" just because they haev a particular leaning, but it does mean that the editorial policy flavors what they cover, how they report it (including the headlines), and of course the op-eds.
If any news source has an overt political leaning, it is important to recognize this in order to filter out the news from the BS, and actually try to get at the facts instead of letting the news source draw the conclusions for the consumer (as in the one consuming the news content).
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jason: I think if you'll go back through the links I offer to back up arguments of mine, you will likely find "liberal" sources of news offered (BBC, New York Times, etc...) as often as "conservative" sources (National Review, etc...).
I was thinking that you sometimes quote sources I would never do, and on the other hand, I can hardly imagine you quoting Noam Chomsky or Z Magazine (well, other than to disprove them ). In the context of my post it could be read that you *only* quote "conservative" sources, sorry for bad wording, did not want to...
I thought The Washington Post is more conservative than liberal! They've been pro-war and pro-Bush all this campaign, no?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
It is "generally considered" that the The Washington Post and New York Times are "liberal" newspapers? By whom?


Academics, among others.
Whispers and Screams: The Partisan Nature of Editorial Pages (pdf)

This paper looks at the editorial stances during the Clinton and Bush II adminstrations of The New York Times and The Washington Post (the liberal papers) on the one hand and The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times (the conservative papers) on the other.


Read the whole thing if you want more context.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I disagree. I think it likely that a truly centrist observer comes to the same conclusion.
Actually I'd disagree more with the notion of "a truly centrist observer". Even if he/she/it exists, we'll never get everyone to agree on who it is, which willmake the concept fairly useless in this discussion. But as for your original point, I will agree that The Washington Post, New York Times, and L.A. Times are generally considered left relative to, say, Fox News, or the National Review. Or The Arizona Republic for that matter. And regardless of where we may each think the centerpoint of this continuum should be, it's certainly useful to have some sense of the relative positions. So I have no real argument with your post in this regard - it's useful for Map to know that you consider The Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times to be leftist-oriented, if only because it tells her that saying "but I quoted the Washington Post" won't really impress you, regardless of what she thinks of it. So I don't really disagree with you here, Jason - just couldn't resist a little teasing.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Tarun Sukhani
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[QBI was thinking that you sometimes quote sources I would never do, and on the other hand, I can hardly imagine you quoting Noam Chomsky or Z Magazine (well, other than to disprove them ). [/QB]


Map, you forgot Alternet and The Progressive!
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So I have no real argument with your post in this regard - it's useful for Map to know that you consider The Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times to be leftist-oriented, if only because it tells her that saying "but I quoted the Washington Post" won't really impress you
And I hoped to make my posts more balanced when I quoted The Washington Post!
 
Tarun Sukhani
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Read the whole thing if you want more context.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but I did read enough to arrive at the following conclusions (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1) The research paper accepts that certain publications are liberal vs. conservative. That is, it doesn't set out to "prove" that they are partisan to one side or the other, just accepts that they are, and pleasantly goes along with its analysis. Again, my point remains - that is, who is deciding all this? This academic accepts that they are liberal vs. conservative just like you do.
2) The paper focuses it's analysis on editorials in publications. Well, aren't editorials SUPPOSED to be one-sided. What does that reveal about the subtle biases that may exist in the rest of the newspaper? It is in the editorials, in fact, where some event or issue invariably gets mangled, by both sides. I don't see the point in these editorials, except to one-up the other.
3) The paper clearly states that conversatives are more vehement about their respective arguments, far more than their liberal counterparts, and more importantly, are less amenable to self-criticism. That to me is interesting. It clearly shows that one side has a lot more at stake, and feels has a lot more to lose if "exposed", if you know what I mean

Anyway, if I'm off on anything, feel free to one-up me...
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jason: Have you paid attention to what is going on in Northern and Southern Iraq, or merely the Baghdad area?
I do not know anything about Southern Iraq, what are your sources? Northern Iraq -- I read that they are doing quite well, although there are potential problems. I am mostly reading this guy.
Unrelated to this thread. I remember you not being too impressed with Al-Jazeera channel. Up to recent I was also thinking about them as almost Al-Qaeda allies. Then I browsed through this book at Borders, and their point is Al-Jazeera is the best news channel in Arabic world. [Disclaimer: I do not know how biased/unbiased authors are, so please, do not take my words for Al-Jazeera extol, I only re-tell what I read] They are financed by a Qatar tycoon, most of their staff is Western-educated, they have actual debates -- something unique for Arabic TV. Admittedly, they see the world through Arabic eyes, but do not tell me American TV doesn't see the world through American eyes. Most of Arabic population of the US watch this channel, which is a good sign, as I can tell. Basically, the authors' point is Al-Jazeera is much better and more free than any other Arabic channel, which is good enough.
Again, not that now I am going to believe each and every word they utter, but at least I have more complex picture now than I had before, that's good.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Then I browsed through this book at Borders, and their point is Al-Jazeera is the best news channel in Arabic world.


I still wouldn't get too impressed with Al-Jihadi Al-Jazeera. Saying they are the best news channel in the Arabic world, while very possibly true, is unfortunately like pointing to a convicted killer and saying "he's the best inmate on death row". It's all relative.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have seen a talk show where our local Al Jazeira correspondent defended his employer. He portrayed his chanel as an open discussion forum and his presentation looked plausible too me. And quite promising, because I believe democracy is better and every people should find their own way. Al Jazeira might be a beneficial vehicle in this process.

If OBL and friends try to instrumentalize this chanel for their goals, its not Al Jazeiras fault. That's an issue for every media.
Have some doubt: If I had access to Fox TV I wouldn't expect to watch a role model for balanced and independent news, where every political perspective is treated equal.
regards Axel
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Me, myself: Not only, Joe. ... I thought that American population of MD would be glad to riead it. In particular, Jason deserved something good after all our fighting, that's what I thought.
And to prove that, something I forgot to mention. The article had numerous references to Clinton administration officials, as I can tell, and when quoting I worked hard to cut them out. For not to piss off Jason and not to make an impression I only quote the article to make "democrats" look good. :roll: Heck, you cannot even say anything pro-American in this country without being pro-Democrats or pro-Republicans...
[ September 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I still wouldn't get too impressed with Al-Jihadi Al-Jazeera. Saying they are the best news channel in the Arabic world, while very possibly true, is unfortunately like pointing to a convicted killer and saying "he's the best inmate on death row". It's all relative.
I am with Axel on this one. You cannot go to Harvard after graduating from kinder garden (no insult to Al-Jazeera intended). It's like "democratic" institutions in Russia I watched -- what did you expect in a country that saw democracy in 1917 last time? Have some patience.
Jason, you need to get a kid.
Me too.
P.S. to everybody: Do not make profound conclusions from the last two statements, please.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
NOTE: Please read you as one.

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:
[QB][/QB]


Thanks for your ranting
The problem is that you dont like to recieve back what you give
Its your upbring and environment has corrupted your way of thinking. No amount of "debating" can change your mind. Logic is out the window. How would one convince a person like you(You always repeat the same thing which has been coutered more than once)?
If so, what emotional arguments? Or is it a simple act of broadcasting "emotional" stories with little substance and factual meat throughout his entire day???
I cant return this. This is bull$%*#.
Just like most anit-usa countries do... Is this how to convince this type of person (Map also included).
I wont return you this statement too as I have some values which prohibites me to replying you in this manner. [Though it never take much time to break my own values.]
And very important thing when post is long and you dont have anything specific to reply then DO NOT use 'reply with quote' link.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

P.S. to everybody: Do not make profound conclusions from the last two statements, please.


 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
give time to UN inspectors.
This was given.


This kind of reply I used to get almost one year back from MY Jason.
Now I would like to know some of the things which I think is correct with my own little knowledge and when it is proved to you [Yes, I am talking to Jason ] you simply deny/keep mum without giving any reason.
I would like you to notice these small things and please correct me too if I am wrong
#) The thread where first you disagree that "no oil contract is given to US" but when I proved you did not comment on that at all.
#) You talked about "world suport" I gave each countries name and the reason[which were very much logical]. Instead of accepting that yes, the countries which are supporting this war are under some way in pressure and are not major player of current political world map.
You simply said the reasons are uesless [dont remember exact wording.]
#) About terrorist link:
How much I can recollect even your link never suggested that SH had any link with Al-quida. True, it talked about supporting Hamamas and Palistine.
Whenever I searched google to find links between SH and "Al-queda" everytime I found that US and UN both accepted that they do not have any prove to establish link between SH and "Al-queda".
[deleted by me, I was going away from "america bashing" ]
I'm not sure what this would have to do with any justification for action.
It was last UN inspector I think, famous name at that time, not able to recollect the name.
He proved all proof/statement given by Powell wrong.
Instead of proving him wrong. Reply was "He is jerk".
What disappoints me replies like the above one. Even I was disappointed when you said about adult movie [I know you were kidding], might be my fault, I should have expected such reply from you too. but you were kidding at the time when you had nothing more to say. [and that made that joke sorta to put in fallacy list.]
I dont think ever I will be able to support any policy which "I" think is not correct let that policy be of any country. If that makes me anti-that_country then I have no comments.
AW do you know what happend in Cancun ?
[I am asking this as its my assumption, in which I do not want to live, this news had not made headline in US]
[ September 17, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:
when it is proved to you [Yes, I am talking to Jason ] you simply deny/keep mum without giving any reason.


You have never proved anything to me on anything remotely close to this subject. You also have grossly mistaken my silence. Usually it is out of boredom or exasperation, or where I may feel that certain comments don't merit a reply.
#) The thread where first you disagree that "no oil contract is given to US" but when I proved you did not comment on that at all.
I remember a thread where you mentioned "oil contracts" where I pointed out to you that the contracts were only for rebuilding the infrastructure.
#) You talked about "world suport" I gave each countries name and the reason[which were very much logical]. Instead of accepting that yes, the countries which are supporting this war are under some way in pressure and are not major player of current political world map.
You simply said the reasons are uesless [dont remember exact wording.]

See the bit above, about mistaking my silence.
#) About terrorist link:
How much I can recollect even your link never suggested that SH had any link with Al-quida. True, it talked about supporting Hamamas and Palistine.
Whenever I searched google to find links between SH and "Al-queda" everytime I found that US and UN both accepted that they do not have any prove to establish link between SH and "Al-queda".

You are aware that there are other terrorist organizations on the planet other than Al-Qaeda, yes? I have in past posts named several organizations which he supported, as well as terrorism directly carried out by Iraqi agents. And you are aware that the US "War on Terror" is not only directed towards Al-Qaeda, yes? Actually, myself and others have mentioned this to you ad nauseum. However, since you recognize that Hussein did support terrorist organizations such as Hammas, then we are in agreement after all that Hussein was a supporter of terrorism.
It was last UN inspector I think, famous name at that time, not able to recollect the name.
He proved all proof given Powell wrong.
Instead of proving him wrong. Reply was "He is jerk".

a) Find where this indvidual proved all of Powell's proof as wrong.
b) Find the post you are referencing so that people can have a more concrete reference, as opposed to having us rely on your memory.
Even I was disappointed when you said about adult movie [I know you were kidding], might be my fault, I should have expected such reply from you too. but you were kidding at the time when you had nothing more to say. [and that made that joke sorta to put in fallacy list.]
Obviously you have never been to Japan. But I digress... Although I chose to comment on this picture instead, which I still find amazing that it bothered you so much (to the point where all I can do is assume you totaly didn't get it), you would be incorrect if you thought that I did not comment because you proved some point to me.
AW do you know what happend in Cancun ?
[I am asking this as its my assumption, in which I do not want to live, this news had not made headline in US]

I don't live under a rock. I know what happened in Cancun. And once again, your assumption is wrong. You sure do have some odd illusions about life in this country and the people in this country.
[ September 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
You sure do have some odd illusions about life in this country and the people in this country.


Yes, I might have odd illusions and want to remove them.
would you help me ??
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You have never proved anything to me on anything remotely close to this subject. You also have grossly mistaken my silence.
OK agree with you.
I remember a thread where you mentioned "oil contracts" where I pointed out to you that the contracts were only for rebuilding the infrastructure.
I wanted to point out this but it slipped from mind. Still I think links will be there were news links says that oil contract is given to XYZ company.
AW not in mood to search that thread. Its good that its buried in past.
See the bit above, about mistaking my silence.
See the bit above.
However, since you recognize that Hussein did support terrorist organizations such as Hammas,
I support Palistine. So for me Hammas are not terrorist. :-|
a) Find where this indvidual proved ALL of Powell's proof as wrong.
slip of tongue .. not all.
b) Find the post you are referencing so that people can have a more concrete reference, as opposed to having us rely on your memory.
Not in a mood to dig old grave.
I wont give link. But here is quote.


Blix is a jerk and the US doesn't want him near anything other than a hotel bar. Blix demonstrated that he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a roadmap. Once he's gone in June, UN inspectors will be let back in.


Its not a part but full post. Yes, you are not the poster.
But I digress... you would be incorrect if you thought that I did not comment because you proved some point to me.
OK.... agreed.
I know what happened in Cancun.
My fault, I should have not asked this question to you.
[ September 17, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Honestly, where do you people find the time for this sort of dialog?
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Honestly, where do you people find the time for this sort of dialog?


I have no work today
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Honestly, where do you people find the time for this sort of dialog?


While waiting for WDSC to start on a 1.4GHz computer with 256MB of RAM and a 5400RPM disk drive .
joe
 
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:

I have no work today



Only today!?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 115
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I support innocent people who should not die needlessly from bus bombings. So for me Hammas is a terrorist organization. Western Society deems them the same...

Originally posted by R K Singh:

However, since you recognize that Hussein did support terrorist organizations such as Hammas,
I support Palistine. So for me Hammas are not terrorist. :-|
[ September 17, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

 
Eleison Zeitgeist
Ranch Hand
Posts: 115
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Who says I don't like to recieve back what I give ;-) If I'm not mistaken I still haven't had a reply from you a while back about our dicussion about being wrong and the consequences of which (including termination of life)... I think you were playing the same game as you are now :-)
In any case, I'm about to leave work and I'm tired with trying to convince you of certain "things". While I leave work to go home, I will just be happy with the knowledge that I live ,IMHO, in a better society then you do; all courtesy of the way I think... no, the way the Western society thinks... compared to other nations, we have clean streets, nice buildings to live and play in, food, shelter, (IMHO) free exchange of information, etc...
I hope you are happy about your situation also. After all, you are part of it and hence had a "hand" even if a minute part.... all courtesty of how your society thinks.. of what they define as "truth" and "lies"...

-Eleison

Originally posted by R K Singh:
NOTE: Please read you as one.

Thanks for your ranting
The problem is that you dont like to recieve back what you give
Its your upbring and environment has corrupted your way of thinking. No amount of "debating" can change your mind. Logic is out the window. How would one convince a person like you(You always repeat the same thing which has been coutered more than once)?
If so, what emotional arguments? Or is it a simple act of broadcasting "emotional" stories with little substance and factual meat throughout his entire day???
I cant return this. This is bull$%*#.
Just like most anit-usa countries do... Is this how to convince this type of person (Map also included).
I wont return you this statement too as I have some values which prohibites me to replying you in this manner. [Though it never take much time to break my own values.]
And very important thing when post is long and you dont have anything specific to reply then DO NOT use 'reply with quote' link.

 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I still wouldn't get too impressed with Al-Jihadi Al-Jazeera. Saying they are the best news channel in the Arabic world, while very possibly true, is unfortunately like pointing to a convicted killer and saying "he's the best inmate on death row". It's all relative.
I am with Axel on this one. You cannot go to Harvard after graduating from kinder garden (no insult to Al-Jazeera intended). It's like "democratic" institutions in Russia I watched -- what did you expect in a country that saw democracy in 1917 last time? Have some patience.
Jason, you need to get a kid.
Me too.
P.S. to everybody: Do not make profound conclusions from the last two statements, please.


Map, I am willing to take an extra step to help you achieve that .
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
cmon it was too tempting NOT to type that one
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Duyba's statement on CNN today
Link - > Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Who says I don't like to recieve back what I give ;-)
Thats good. I like it.
IMHO, in a better society then you do;
Here comes the problem.
You are most welcome to say "My society is best."
But when I say that my society is better than your, then at the same time I am also saying that your society is bad/poor/spoiled.
Am I clear ??
the way the Western society thinks... compared to other nations, we have clean streets, nice buildings to live and play in, food, shelter,
I did not know society consist of road, building, playground, food, shelter.
I was in the impression that men, women, children, family, relatives, friends, brothers, sisters make society.
No thanks, I think "my" society is *much* better than your becasue it is not made of brick, cement, iron etc.
And the way [any]society thinks, it is always the best way for that society at that time.
And there is nothing like absolute good and bad. So very much possible that in your society some thing is suppose to be good and in other society it is not followed and suppose to be the worst act.
[Exa: If I am Jain then you are bad if you are non-vegetarian.
If I do not belong to cannibal, then for me cannibals are bad.
But if I belong to cannibal society then .. yum .. you taste good ]
You will have your own excuses to be non-vegetarian and Jain will have its own philosophy of life. Can you tell who is better ??
(IMHO) free exchange of information, etc...
What do you think, where do I live and what kind of freedom I enjoy ??
all courtesty of how your society thinks..
Whatever my society thinks is best 'today'.
AW Never think that I represent my society, my caste, my nation.
Its me, R K Singh, all thoughts belongs to me and only me.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mani Ram:
Only today!?


 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:
I support innocent people who should not die needlessly from bus bombings. So for me Hammas is a terrorist organization. Western Society deems them the same...


Do you have to say anything about Israel's military actions and the people who die in those action.
Just beacuse it is military action does not legitimate the action of Israel.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <I Killed Kenny>:
Duyba's statement on CNN today
Link - > Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks


But you dont know 100s of links has been given just to prove that.
Now after war how can he say like this.
Is this cheating ?? or manipulation of society to get support.
I know, you wont believe in any of this.
How can 2/3rd people belive in a thing which is not true ?
Is this because of misinformation?
But where is misinformation ?? You will never agree on the things the way I see.
I see, 2/3 people believed on a false information because of mis-information available there.
What other possible reasons could be for this ???
 
Bring out your dead! Or a tiny ad:
Thread Boost feature
https://coderanch.com/t/674455/Thread-Boost-feature
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic