Some more insight on Iraq

[Gaffer]

Here's the latest from Micheal Yon's blog.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...t-ii-of-iv.htm

I like his writing.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/34tjwv

Middle East turmoil could cause world war: U.S. envoy Mon Aug 27, 6:57 AM ET



VIENNA (Reuters) - Upheaval in the Middle East and Islamic civilization could cause another world war, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as saying in an Austrian newspaper interview published on Monday.

Zalmay Khalilzad told the daily Die Presse the Middle East was now so disordered that it had the potential to inflame the world as Europe did during the first half of the 20th century.

"The (Middle East) is going through a very difficult transformation phase. That has strengthened extremism and creates a breeding ground for terrorism," he said in remarks translated by Reuters into English from the published German.

"Europe was just as dysfunctional for a while. And some of its wars became world wars. Now the problems of the Middle East and Islamic civilization have the same potential to engulf the world," he was quoted as saying.

This guy seems to have some opinions about the war also.

[darin]

Do you realize there are few more-biased-ANTI USA sites than Reuters?

[truthmatters]

Only in your mind

[darin]

Not just in MY mind...in the minds of Free-thinkers EVERYWHERE:

IGNOBLE AWARD WINNER: REUTERS

With over 200 news bureaus worldwide, Reuters stakes its claim as "the largest international multi-media news agency." Though Reuters' own editorial policy claims the agency's reporters "do not offer subjective opinion," and intend merely "to enable readers and viewers to form their own judgement," in fact Reuters' coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is flagrantly biased against Israel. Some examples from 2003:

* In January, Reuters blamed Israel for "killing" Palestinian suicide bombers:

Iraq has paid millions of dollars to families of Palestinians, including those of suicide bombers, killed by Israeli forces since the start of the uprising in September 2000.

* As Israel prepared to build a wall to protect worshippers at Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, Reuters published this headline:

"Israel to Split Christ's Birthplace with Barrier"

To emphasize its (completely external) point, Reuters repeated the word "Christ" or "Christian" in each of the article's first four sentences.

* On Nov. 18, two Israeli soldiers were killed outside Bethlehem and a number of Palestinians were wounded in Gaza. Reuters had pictures of both events, but journalists who subscribe to Reuters' photo service were encouraged to publish the Palestinian victims in this email (emphasis added):

Dear User of the Reuters Pictures Archive,

Please find below a single picture presentation showing two Palestinians rushing a wounded Palestinian to hospital in the Rafah refugee camp in the southern part of the Gaza strip, November 18, 2003 :

* When Palestinian terrorist groups announced a hudna with the PA, Israel was not a party in the agreement, and the official road map demanded a full disarming of terror groups ― not a temporary hudna cease-fire. Yet Reuters took the opportunity to vilify Israel with the headline:

"Israel Pours Scorn on Truce With Militants"

And when Israel did show flexibility for Palestinian demands, above and beyond the roadmap's requirements? On Nov. 3, Reuters reported that Israel reinstated 15,000 Palestinian work permits, and included this comment in a news report:

150,000 Palestinians [previously] made a living in Israel, so Sunday's restoration of 15,000 Israeli work permits is still only a drop in the ocean.

Actually, 15,000 was fully 10%, and a risky loosening of anti-terror policy. Even the Palestinian official quoted by Reuters called it "an important step."

[truthmatters]

I thought links were required when you post things or are the rules only for people you dont like?

[Gaffer]

I thought links were required when you post things or are the rules only for people you dont like?

You don't read the links any way so what difference does it make.

[darin]

I thought links were required when you post things or are the rules only for people you dont like?

The link is posted.

Now - care to discuss Reuters - which has been known for YEARS to be blatantly biased against the US?

[gabosaurus]

EVERY site that dares to question the Bushies is "dangerous" and "liberal minded." Only Fox and the NY Post are not members of the "mainstream media."
Such bullshit. Wake up and realize the truth.

[darin]

Its not their 'questioning' the President - it's their calculated Malicious biased SLANDER and LIBEL they present as 'objective'. FOX at least is more centrist in whatever bias the reporters and commentators (who are PAID for their personal opinion) have.

[truthmatters]

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/history.asp

It seems to be funded by some sort of isreali group concerned with portraying Isreal as the good guy?

I dont think this site can be concidered unbiased.

So unless you a find something a little more reliable other than a site supported by one specific source then I dont think this means mush?

[darin]

You don't think - that's exactly the problem. Instead of disputing the evidence I have for Reuters bias, you attack 'your view' of the source.

[truthmatters]

DMP you are attacking a source as biased with a biased source.

Dude dont you get the twilight zone like air in that ?

[gabosaurus]

Fox is NOT centrist. It is far right. Bush apologists consider all attacks on and questioning of White House policy to be "malicious slander."

[truthmatters]

I just cant see calling rueters biased?

Its pretty much a very expansive news service from what I see.