ah, changing topics
fine effort
~~~~
I'm going to make some $$$ as soon as Thomas resurfaces.
okie, the point of the article is that news spreads faster today than it has in the past. A valid point and a simple one. As for No Gun Ri new evidence is still coming out.
http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060529/D8HTK2CO1.html Which is what the article is saying. Haditha is in the headlines quicker than past atrocities. "There is no question in my mind that things are different," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. "Clearly, we see a compression in the time an incident can be hidden from the public."
What I wanna know is why Blue and a few others have already found the marines guilty?
All the evidence is not in,the investigations are still continuing,there have been no charges filed,yet some on the "idiot fringe" on the left have already convicted these marines.
Why do they seem to want to deny these marines the same rights that they have demanded for those held in Gitmo?
(Throws a $100 on the table.)
Whether the marines committed crimes or simply reacted to a situation doesn't really matter in this discussion.
Either way civilians are dead. And dead civilians are happening at a higher rate in Iraq than in DC.
blueflame1 wrote: okie, the point of the article is that news spreads faster today than it has in the past. A valid point and a simple one. As for No Gun Ri new evidence is still coming out.
http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060529/D8HTK2CO1.html Which is what the article is saying. Haditha is in the headlines quicker than past atrocities. "There is no question in my mind that things are different," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. "Clearly, we see a compression in the time an incident can be hidden from the public."
I agree the news travels faster. My point is that news is now a bigger part of the news. To demonstrate my point, what would happen if the Iraq war was only casually mentioned, while traffic death stories and statistics were pounded on day after day, along with equipment failures, airbag failures, slow emergency response times, poor traffic enforcement, problem highways that need improvements but haven't received any, and all the rest, what do you think would be the hue and cry in Washington to do something about? My point is that there are problems in many areas, tragedies in many sectors, and focusing on such things will bring a greater awareness and along with public outcries for action to do something.
Call it feminization of the news, whatever, but news is becoming more emotionally based than fact based.
nimh wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The fact is that I am perfectly free to say that 3x is comparable to x, and refuse to say that 9x is comparable.
You are perfectly
free to say so, but it doesn't make any sense.
Is 45% of the vote "in the same neighbourhood" as 15%?
Are 18 apples "in the same neighbourhood" as 6 apples?
Is a $6 trillion "in the same neighbourhood" as $2 trillion one?
Are some 128 violent civilian deaths (per x) "in the same neighbourhood" as some 36 ones?.
Nimh, you're to modest to brag about it here -- but thanks for informing Brandon's employer that he could cut Brandon's pay to a third of what it currently is. Brandon considers that "in the same neighborhood", so he probably wouldn't object much to such a cut.
ehBeth wrote:Thomas wrote:I am confident that one day, Brandon will learn that making a mistake and not admitting it is only hurting yourself twice.
Is this a betting kinda thing?
Cuz I'm about ready to take it.
Thanks, but no thanks. Betting is immoral and I don't do immoral things anymore. (Translation: My existing bets with fellow A2Kers aren't looking too well.)
Quote:what would happen if the Iraq war was only casually mentioned
For the most part, the Iraq war is only casually mentioned in the news.
Considering that it is a major engagement of our armed forces, it should be pretty much front page news every day. Yet there are periods of time that go by with hardly a mention of it - weeks at a time, sometimes.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:what would happen if the Iraq war was only casually mentioned
For the most part, the Iraq war is only casually mentioned in the news.
Considering that it is a major engagement of our armed forces, it should be pretty much front page news every day. Yet there are periods of time that go by with hardly a mention of it - weeks at a time, sometimes.
Cycloptichorn
I don't think 2 or 3 days go by without prominent mention of it, let alone weeks.
Bushie said "The doctrine still stands: If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists who commit murder." The Bushie Doctrine. The police report filed on the massacre at Ishaqi quotes a neighbor as saying a member of al qaeda was visiting a relative at the house where the massacre occurred. According to the Bushie Doctrine that makes everyone in the house as guilty as the al qaeda person, terrorists. The police report says the family was executed including children and found under the rubble with bullet holes in the head and chest and covered by a blanket. They were lined up against a wall with one executed man facing them from the opposite wall as if he was made to watch. There was a wide sweep going on in that area at that time. Many Iraqis were executed that week. It could well be that this massacre was an example of the Bushie Doctrine aimed at striking fear in the people living in that area. Looking at the police report some people might come to that conclusion. Some might say yes and it was justified. We warned you.
Quote:I don't think 2 or 3 days go by without prominent mention of it, let alone weeks.
During the immigration debacle, you didn't hear a peep about Iraq for more than a week - no network news, no articles, no nothing. I remember it quite clearly.
It's understandable, really; it is difficult for the media to focus on a story so continually for year after year...
Cycloptichorn
I am very much afraid that Mr. Cyclopitchorn is quite mistaken. In the papers I receive, the Iraq war is mentioned daily and often prominently. I will try to help Mr.Cyclopitchorn to get a perspective on this by mentioning the stories in these two newspapers each day.
Can we go back to making fun of how ridiculous the claim about comparing the death rates is?
Loved the comment about Brandon's salary, BTW.
I note that he is conspicously absent from these pages. Vacation? Embarassment? Cowardice?
This was reported in the New York Sun- Is it in error, and if so, why?
"According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war.
I suppose, the New York Sun quoted King correctly.
I've no idea, why this should be an error - at least any other media used the same figures as it can be seen on Mr King's official publications as well.
I question, however, the validity of comparing data of nations to states.
Even more, comparing data from nations to cities.
[The figure for Iraq, is not the "violent death rate"; it is only the rate of violent death from war. (The equivalent figure for the other countries and cities presumably would be zero.)]
But if you like that, okay for me as well - shows a bit more about you.
Btw: in October 2004, researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad found out that the chances of a violent death were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.
Mr. Hinteler- May I respectfully suggest that you pay closer attention to your sources of information.
**********************************************************
A report published last year in the medical journal the Lancet suggested the chances of a violent death in Iraq were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.
The study was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors, but conceded that the data on which the projections were based was of "limited precision".
***********************************************************
That last paragraph invalidates your entire comment.
You know, of course, what the response would have been in Germany in 1944 if someone went around asking how many Germans had been killed in the air raids.
I think you had better read your sources more carefully!
Source (click on pic to enlarge ... or go to source)
Mr. Hinteler- May I respectfully suggest that you pay closer attention to your sources of information.
**********************************************************
A report published last year in the medical journal the Lancet suggested the chances of a violent death in Iraq were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.
The study was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors, but conceded that the data on which the projections were based was of "limited precision".
***********************************************************
That last paragraph invalidates your entire comment.
You know, of course, what the response would have been in Germany in 1944 if someone went around asking how many Germans had been killed in the air raids.
I think you had better read your sources more carefully!
Mr. Hinteler- May I respectfully suggest that you pay closer attention to your sources of information.
**********************************************************
A report published last year in the medical journal the Lancet suggested the chances of a violent death in Iraq were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.
The study was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors, but conceded that the data on which the projections were based was of "limited precision".
***********************************************************
That last paragraph invalidates your entire comment.
You know, of course, what the response would have been in Germany in 1944 if someone went around asking how many Germans had been killed in the air raids.
I think you had better read your sources more carefully!
BernardR wrote:Mr. Hinteler- May I respectfully suggest that you pay closer attention to your sources of information.
May I kindly suggest that you don't ask others to quote from qweel-respected American universities in that case, then? I was only following your advice .... bad boy, that I'm.
