News US troops destroy Iraq's ancient past

[Adam]

Irreplaceable historical sites and religious artefacts are being destroyed by the US-led occupation forces, says Iraq's interim culture minister.

Sites including Babylon, one of the world's most renowned archaeological treasures, are being damaged by the occupation forces, according to minister Mufid al-Jazairi.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EEFBD5A1-B731-457D-812E-A6D5CCFD51E7.htm

Yay for Operation Iraqi Freedom!

 

[Hurkyl]

Curious. Were you drawn to the obvious flaws in that article as well?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

"We don't know how much damage the military presence has caused because our experts are not permitted to enter the site."

It appears minister Al-Jazairi and his experts don't know sh_t from Shinola.

 

[Janitor]

Does anybody have any thoughts on the righteousness (or lack thereof) on the part of the former Taliban government of Afghanistan when it destroyed the Buddhist statues there?

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/afghanistan010302.html

 

[Prometheus]

Does anybody have any thoughts on the righteousness (or lack thereof) on the part of the former Taliban government of Afghanistan when it destroyed the Buddhist statues there?

What might you mean by righteousness?

 

[Janitor]

I am willing to go with the Webster's definition:

Right´eous`ness
n. 1. The quality or state of being righteous; holiness; purity; uprightness; rectitude.

 

[BobG]

You're really reaching on this one. You probably should have been satisfied to get in two anti-American posts in one day.

 

[Mattius_]

When resistance forces hide in mosques and shrines then Americans tear them down. I am not saying Iraqis should fight fair, I am just saying that if they choose to hide in the holy places of their country, then we should choose to tear them down.

 

[JohnDubYa]

War is Hell.

 

[Adam]

"War is hell, and some other pathetic platitudes. That excuses everything I do, right? Doesn't it? Please?"

I don't think it would stand up too well in ANY court.

 

[kat]

Lol, it will stand up just fine in court.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it would stand up too well in ANY court.

As a matter of fact, you're backing the wrong horse: if this were to go to court, the defendants would be Iraqi, not American. I'm not sure anyone will be prosecuted for the destruction of an old building, but if civilians die in an apartment building (for example) because terrorists were using it as a fortress, the terrorists are criminally responsible for their deaths.

 

[Adam]

Lol, it will stand up just fine in court.

Like in Nuremberg?

 

[Adam]

As a matter of fact, you're backing the wrong horse: if this were to go to court, the defendants would be Iraqi, not American. I'm not sure anyone will be prosecuted for the destruction of an old building, but if civilians die in an apartment building (for example) because terrorists were using it as a fortress, the terrorists are criminally responsible for their deaths.

So every instance of the USA military killing civilians is easily swept under the rug by you because, in every single case, it was "terrorists using human shields"? And no USA person is ever guilty of war crimes, because... they're nicer, or something?

The victors do not face prosecution. A few individuals of no consequence may be hung out to dry as scapegoats, but that's about all.

 

[studentx]

So every instance of the USA military killing civilians is easily swept under the rug by you because, in every single case, it was "terrorists using human shields"? And no USA person is ever guilty of war crimes, because... they're nicer, or something?

Strawman Adam, tsk tsk
Dont you have to say something about Hitler and the nazis now?

 

[Adam]

Do you have anything relevant and rational to say? Ever?

 

[Adam]

And no, it's not a straw man.

 

[jimmy p]

Is it just me or does

...Heavy equipment, helicopters and other machinery used by Polish-led forces based at Babylon, 100km south of Baghdad...

NOT sound very US to me. In fact the only time they mention US personnel is when they say that US contractors are also causing damage. Contractors that arent military.

It just a bit of hatebreeding and warmongering. Pointless.

 

[Loren Booda]

Iraq's ancient past is the world's ancient past.

 

[JohnDubYa]

This article is amazing in its complete disregard for objectivity. Look at the title: US troops destroy Iraq's ancient past. But if you read the article, you find that it was POLISH troops that are the accused.

Al Jazeera is clearly taking sides in this war and has no problem skewing the news to further its pro-Arab cause. Naturally Adam buys into it. He would buy a wheelbarrow if it had an anti-US bumper sticker on it.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

If helicopters flying overhead and heavy equipment rolling nearby these structures are causing all this damage, then these structures were in a state of collapse before the coalition troops arrived. Now why would minister Mufid al-Jazairi make such a claim...maybe he’s fishing for some coalition restoration money with a little set aside for his retirement.

 

[Hurkyl]

Look at the title: US troops destroy Iraq's ancient past. But if you read the article, you find that it was POLISH troops that are the accused.

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. Y'all catch that the "evidence" is merely 3rd hand anecdotes of damage? (not damage caused by troops)

 

[Adam]

At which point, precisely, am I supposed to have invented the title of that article?

 

[Hurkyl]

At which point, precisely, am I supposed to have invented the title of that article?

What a curious question; I wonder what could have prompted you to ask that.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What is the title of this thread, Adam? And who posted it?

 

[Adam]

I posted this thread. The title is the title of the article. Your point?

 

[kat]

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. Y'all catch that the "evidence" is merely 3rd hand anecdotes of damage? (not damage caused by troops)

Yes, yes..very shoddy reporting. It boils down to nothing but rumor and innuendo. I'm surprised someone would post such a story. It would seem to be on the same level as posting an article from the Enquirer.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I posted this thread. The title is the title of the article. Your point?

You read the article. You knew the title was misleading. You knew that not everyone was going to read the article and discover the truth. Ergo, you furthered the lie.

I can see why you support Michael Moore. Your tactics are very much the same.

 

[Adam]

Shrubite, I suppose you simply haven't noticed: when I post news articles, I generaly use the article title as the thread title.

 

[JohnDubYa]

It is your responsibilty to not provide misleading thread titles. You knew damn well that US troops were not targeted in the story and that the headline was misleading, but you used it anyway. Anyone who plays the "Inn-o-ceeent Farmer" bit has no business complaining about George W. Bush' honesty.

 

[Adam]

I have no responsibility to you or anyone else here. Make the effort to read the articles. Then come up with a legitimate objection if you must object, instead of this ad hominem garbage.

 

[Hurkyl]

Don't forget, Adam, that you are the one who brought up the issue of you titling things.

And if you cared to notice, you'd see people are bringing up legitimate objections, including JohnDubYa.

And, I'm curious, why do you think your credibility as a "reporter" is not a valid topic of discussion?

 

[Adam]

I'm not a reporter. But feel free to start a thread about it, in which case there is the chance that you might post on topic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I have no responsibility to you or anyone else here.

In other words, you cannot be trusted to print the truth. But ****, we knew that already.

 

[Adam]

How does:

I have no responsibility to you or anyone else here.

equal:

In other words, you cannot be trusted to print the truth.

?

Is this some sort of fruitcake logic that they use in your world?

 

[JohnDubYa]

When someone is accused of providing misleading statements, and their only retort is that they have no responsibility to anyone that reads their statements, then they are admitting that they have no responsibility to tell the truth. Therefore their words cannot be trusted.

And everyone reading this thread knows what you did, so you can talk out of both sides of your mouth if you wish. You knowingly posted a falsehood and got called on it. Those are the facts.

 

[Adam]

The facts are:

• I haven't lied, as accused.
• You have made lame accusations, and haven't supported them.
• Your ad hominems are rather pathetic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

You forgot one:

No one can trust anything you say "as far as they can throw you."

 

[Adam]

Yay for moderation...

 

[studentx]

Gotta agree with Johny there. You posted a misleading article Adam, and we're all wondering: why did you do it?