News US troops destroy Iraq's ancient past

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on claims by Iraq's interim culture minister, Mufid al-Jazairi, regarding the destruction of historical sites and religious artifacts by US-led occupation forces, specifically mentioning damage to Babylon. Participants debate the credibility of the minister's claims, with some questioning the evidence and suggesting that the damage may not be directly caused by US troops but rather by Polish-led forces. The conversation shifts to broader themes of accountability in warfare, with arguments about the responsibility of both military and insurgent actions leading to civilian casualties and the destruction of cultural heritage. Critics of the article argue that it presents a biased view, while others defend the necessity of military actions in the context of combat. The discussion highlights tensions over the interpretation of war narratives, media responsibility, and the complexities of cultural preservation amidst conflict.
  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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?
 
  • #33
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.
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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?
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
You forgot one:

No one can trust anything you say "as far as they can throw you."
 
  • #39
Yay for moderation...
 
  • #40
Gotta agree with Johny there. You posted a misleading article Adam, and we're all wondering: why did you do it?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K