|
Thyestean feast in Iraq? | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 07:23:48 |
|
How DARE we ignore all this by | by hadji | 2007-07-10 07:33:05 |
|
Don't get the news much? (n/t) | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 07:34:48 |
|
Don't clarify your points much? (n/t) | by hadji | 2007-07-10 07:36:30 |
|
Nevermind, it's not worth it. | by hadji | 2007-07-10 07:43:01 |
|
I figured you at least skimmed headlines | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 08:25:01 |
|
That post is useless. | by hadji | 2007-07-10 08:36:21 |
|
Am thinking the "absolute silence..." | by esbita | 2007-07-10 09:33:08 |
|
The article says | by jeff_uk | 2007-07-10 09:52:05 |
|
Not that hadji would've known. | by esbita | 2007-07-10 10:02:57 |
|
Yes he could, DR66 quoted that part here..... (n/t) | by jeff_uk | 2007-07-10 10:05:00 |
|
Quoted what, where? (n/t) | by esbita | 2007-07-10 10:09:01 |
|
In the TLP | by hadji | 2007-07-10 10:21:18 |
|
Nice cherry-picking. | by esbita | 2007-07-10 10:32:52 |
|
There are times when cherry-picking is valid. | by hadji | 2007-07-10 11:33:42 |
|
Hardly. Without reading the context... | by esbita | 2007-07-10 12:26:21 |
|
Is there reason to believe that possibly | by Peace_man | 2007-07-10 13:01:15 |
| Now, that's actually the sorta response I'm lookin |
by esbita |
2007-07-10 13:22:49 |
g for. (sslr) *Fixes a gold star to your desk*
But hey, you actually bothered to read the article. For probably the majority of the thread, hadji didn't.
At issue is always the agenda of the press/blog author/whatever. The true depth of atrocities in a war usually don't get reported till well after the fact.
IF, IF the report is true, the media would have to decide whether ratings on a lurid story are worth the indirect admission that the opposing forces are resorting to some nasty things, and that force is the only thing they understand. It would amount to some justification for a very politically unpopular fight. In short, it'd amount to a lot of anti-Bush and anti-US people having to award a couple rhetorical points in the debate.
The thing about pride is most people would rather be "right" than deal with the core issue.
Point granted that this is based on hearsay, and that we've no cell pics of...*blech* So the question is, at what level, at what point, do you really expect the "mainstream media" to report on this, if true?
All valid, debatable points you make. But instead someone decides to run in circles for a couple dozen posts harping on the summary, admittedly without reading the sources, and indulging in rhetorical hairsplitting.
This is a debate tactic I find particularly distasteful. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
What you seem to be missing is that the summary | by hadji | 2007-07-10 13:29:50 |
|
You couldn't have "known" that at the time | by esbita | 2007-07-10 13:41:06 |
|
It was a reasonable guess. And it was right. (n/t | by hadji | 2007-07-10 13:47:51 |
|
But you might not have been right! and arguing | by jeff_uk | 2007-07-10 14:01:35 |
|
Kinda like Bush invading Iraq in the first place, | by hadji | 2007-07-10 14:06:24 |
