10 January 2006

Bringing Freedom to Iraq

US troops blast their way with bullets into the bedroom of an Iraqi journalist, cover his face with a hood, and take him away for questioning.
A prize-winning Iraqi journalist, working for the Guardian, was investigating claims that the US and Britain misused and misappropriated tens of millions of dollars belonging to Iraq. (I assume that's on top of the $9 billion in Iraqi money an audit last year said we "lost.")

A few days ago, the director of his film informed US authorities about what he had learned, and asked for an interview.

Yesterday, American troops stormed into his home, firing into the room where he, his wife, and children were sleeping, and took videotape that he shot for the film.

If that isn't an attempt to intimidate a journalist asking dangerous questions, I can't imagine what it is. But American journalists ought to demand some answers.

I reckon Mr. Fadhil's investigation uncovered some truths that "American authorities" were not interested in being exposed.

Just another consequence of an illegal, immoral invasion of a country that had nothing to do with defending America…


Why don't I see this in the NYT - they would have had this on the front page for a week. Also haven't heard the defeatists in DC howling about this. How do we know it happened?
Submitted for your perusal:


And that took me just 2 minutes, I'm sure I could dig up more information upon a more detailed inquiry… …so not sure if you're just trolling, or have some other motive…

Are you referring to the same NY Times that sat on the illegal spying story in collusion with the interests of the Bush administration?
Well, if it's on the internet it must be true. Especially coming from the above sites reknown for their impartial even-handedness. Also, please specify which court ruled Bush's wiretap program is illegal. The NYT sat on the story until it was in their interest to reveal it. Some people, not me, consider it treason.
Um, there's a whole bunch of different sources specified there, including first person accounts. Again, I don't know if you just find it amusing to play a troll, or are actually serious about being ignorant.

Just because a court hasn't ruled on something, doesn't mean its not "illegal". Maybe in a strict "legalism" sense, but everything Nazi Germany did was absolutely legal, sanctified by their court system and even here in America, SCOTUS has upheld some abominable statutes, that nobody today would claim had any basis in legality, at least on any moral grounds that most all except the vilest of racists…
Knew it wouldn't take long to pull out the Nazi reference. To the lefty fringe, everybody else must be a Nazi. Or seriously ignorant.
Non-sequitur and way to duck the issue. Way to miss the point, which is what you setout to accomplish. And nice attempt to paint a label to discredit something that is in contrast to the dogma you beleive in, of instead of addressing the facts of the matter.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
You're the one who brought up Nazi, troll, seriously ignorant, blind. Your labels. My original point is your utter belief in any story from any source must be true if it confirms your beliefs. The sites you reference cannot be taken as credible by themselves because they're agenda driven. This particular story has not been mentioned by the major news sources. Therefore, until impartially confirmed, I withhold judgement. Now, if you're first impulse is to resort to name calling (Nazi, troll, seriously ignorant, blind), fine. Third graders do this as well.
NPR is not a 'major news source'?

They pick and choose the stories they broadcast and I'm far from the first person to sense a very leftward tilt with their agenda (oops, selections). Interesting? Not really. You can have the last post.
You are missing Naum's point. I find one of the weakest arguments that both the left and the right use is if the evidence is against them, they blame the messenger. Just because a particular form of media does not subscribe to your own POV (point of view) does not automatically mean that the information is not true or suspect, as you assume.

You intentionally ignore the central point of Naum's message. I don't have to call you names like Naum to completly discredit your fallacious reasoning.
I guess if it wasn't seem on Fox news or metioned on the Drudge report, it really never happened?

I never question the source of mainstream media simply because it does not match my own POV, because this is fallacious, irrational, and illogical reasoning. It is a very slothful(lazy) way of disregarding facts which do not match my own POV. Instead, why not actually study the facts which Naum presents (which will admitedly take more intellectual work on your part) then simply disregard them out of hand?
Let me try to be more intellectual. I never attempted to prove or disprove the event in question - I only caution against automatically accepting any story if it merely aligns with and confirms your beliefs. Especially from the sources mentioned above. Facts are facts unless they're not.
I agree 100%. Excellent point bob.
Thanks for the comments.

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it