Well, I guess that I am glad that you are not in charge of anything in Fallujah. What a sick attitude.
I see you have not gotten past your reliance on the one writer that agrees with your views. How’s he doing now that his other stories were so thoroughly discredited as “flawed?”
[quote=“dearpeter”]So I guess everyone in Fallujah was a terrorist, so we need to keep treating them like cattle.[/quote]No. We continue to kill the terrorists so the people of Fallujah can get about with their life.
This may piss off some “alternative” web sites, but hey, they ain’t doin’ anything worthwhile anyway… 
But it’s the people of Fallujah who are being treated like criminals long after the seige and all that. Most of them never did anything wrong. It is obviously an experiment to see how much oppression the US forces can get away with. I expect to see other Iraqi cities suffer the same treatment in the future.
Did you guys read the article at all?
(And why do you guys always obsess over labeling people’s information sources acceptable or not without addressing the actual things people are trying to discuss? People will get their information as they wish. Accept that. You probably get your news from Fox and believe it anyway. All media sources have an agenda.)
Most Iraqis including many in Baghdad would actually prefer the kind of tighter scrutiny if it offers security. That would appear to be the case in Fallujah so what’s the beef with your guy?
Tried to, but I have to say, eyes swimming with boredom, yawn, heard it all before…
Because you have essentially got a highly policitized person. You are quoting that person to support your views. Are they mainstream? Sensible? or just hot-headed rambles that you have latched onto because you want to believe that what he says is true to justify your own highly politicized views of the subject?
Yes, of that I have little doubt…
I will accept that they have the right to read and believe whatever they want but not that I have to treat such “insight” with anything more than the contempt that it so richly deserves. Better in my view to read a wide range of sources to cover all the bases and then arrive at a conclusion. You will naturally have to defend your position and having a clear idea of all the arguments better enables one to do that. Alternatively, it is possible that you may eventually have to change your mind. It is admittedly a rare occurrence but I have done so on a number of occasions.
I would say that Fox has a great deal more credibility than the “source” that you have “quoted.” Again, disagree, then prove me wrong. Show how Fox “slants” the “message” or “withholds” pertinent information for political reasons… It does have a political slant and that is clearly evident in its editorials but what about its regular news coverage? Can you prove that it is completely out of line there? I don’t think so.
True but that should not allow them to get away with breaking journalist ethical codes. That again is why I think it is better to rely on a number of different sources. You can always prefer one to another but you had better be up on as much of the details as you can. Clearly, that is not the case with you and your “friend.” That is why no one here really respects your views on the subject. Sorry…