Where are the figures? Link?
If ever.
So no going into other people’s countries to exteminate terrorists then, right?
You are so predictable.
I suppose you approve of Saddam Hussein’s government practice of running electrical wire up detainees’ urethras and turning on the voltage. Or giving opposition leaders electro-shock until they’re retarded and eating out of garbage cans as an example to others. It’s not that different from your preferred policy of the state dealing with people’s anatomy.
Do you know a lot of Iraqis personally, by the way?
Nope, don’t approve of that. Do you? So no going into other people’s countries to exterminate terrorists then, right?
Why do you ask?
Acts of war are not the same as civil crimes.
So I take it you don’t agree with the idea of invading a European country to throw out a government that killed 6 million Jews, or of invading the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing.
By the way, do you approve of amputation of limbs as a penalty for theft?
Because your opinions about what is happening in the Middle East sound like those of someone who never talks to Iraqis, or isn’t close enough to them so that they’ll tell what they think.
A late entry for some country or other?
Now which Iraqis would you be talking about? These?
Opinion:
Choose your maniac?
Why are you sending me only links from amateur sites? I mean, look at those things! Even a Ku Klux Klan site is more professional!
And why are you sending us only conservative views, Jamie?
“Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world’s current events.”
One of my “amateur” sites based its comments on this professional site:
“And while most Iraqis still believe US troops are making things worse, the number who want the Americans to pull out immediately has fallen.”
[color=blue]‘In spite of all the improvements, the Sunni population of Iraq clearly remains deeply alienated, and deeply hostile," our correspondent says.’
So, back to my question: which Iraqis were you referring to here?
Here’s the background of the writer of one of my “amateur” sites:
Frederick H. Gareau holds a Ph.D. in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as a licence in political science from the University of Geneva. He is full professor at Florida State University and author of The United Nations and Other International Insitutions: A Critical Analysis as well as an extensive number of articles and conference reports.
…
(1) Basing one’s views on something and actually not distorting those views are two different things. I’ve seen neo-Nazis and similar people base their beliefs on legitimate sources and distort them beyond all recognition. So it means nothing which “legitimate” source the operator of some cheesy blog has based his commentaries on.
(2) You present exclusively hard-left points of view that are relatively uninformed, while discounting anything from any other part of the political spectrum. Since you present a far-left viewpoint, it only stands to reason that someone broadening the debate would approach it from a different direction.
(3) The BBC is quite broadly acknowledged as having transformed itself from a relatively objective news reporting operation to a leftist, reflexively anti-American publisher and broadcaster of commentary disguised as news. They used to be one of my main sources of news, but a few times in recent years, when they were reporting on matters in the US that I had direct experience of, their stories were so distorted that one could only conclude that they were deliberately lying. The stories were too far from the truth for the discrepancy to be accounted for by political bias or incomplete reporting. I never trusted them again. I had a similar experience with Time magazine in the 1990s when they reported on things I witnessed in Eastern Europe.
But, more to the point, have you seen American conservatives do the same?
Hard-left? The BBC? C’mon, Jamie, wake up.
And yet you believe the “unbaised” view of the National Review, right?
The point is, Jamie, I agree with this and you don’t:
‘BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says the continuing divisions make it “pretty meaningless to talk about ‘Iraqi’ opinion.”’
You think there is, or you want us to believe there is, a unified opinion in Iraq, I do not think there is.
American leftists distort material from legitimate – and illegitimate – sources more than the American right does. I used to be closer to the communist end of the spectrum, and realizing that from empirical evidence was what changed my orientation. I found that Reader’s Digest was a much more reliable source of facts than Mother Jones was.
I think you need to wake up, because there is no such thing as unbiased journalism. However, there is such a thing as lying, and I have seen the BBC do it.
If you don’t believe there’s a unified opinion in Iraq, then why do you act as if there is? And if you don’t think there’s a unified opinion in Iraq, then why did you condemn the article I linked to that pointed out that there is no unified opinion in Iraq?
I don’t think I’ve even suggested such. It’s you who keeps presenting the Disney view of things. You who keeps chanting “I know feminists, Commies, gays, leftists, liberals, blacks, terrorists, etc. better than you do and I’m right on all things”. Go widen your brief.
I come form a country full of biased info, so don’t go telling me nuthin about that.
Hi all,
I wasn’t around for a little while, and I more than happy to see this subject which makes me think of that Oprah show, when she invited this guy,who shot the man which molested his daughter. (I want to apologise for my grammar and spelling, I still don’t know how to write properly)
The man’s daughter walks home right after she’s been raped by someone she knew.
They go to the police and tell the story. They say she shouldn’t be dressed like this in the first place, and treat her as it was her fault.
They send them home, and nothing happens at all.
The man knows who did it, everyone know who did it, because this guy was known as a pedophile among his daughter’s friends.
They’ve got him though, his wife called him pretending to be a young girl, he trapped him and shot him with a rifle.
Two years he did for it, he couldn’t be with his family, and it was a long time.
In the show he said it’s never worth it, but if it’d happened again he would do the same. At this part the whole audience stood up and started applauding.
Then I said to my wife if the same thing would ever happen to us I’d destroy that person with my bare hands until it wouldn’t be recognised as an ever existed human being at all. I would put myself in his body, and explode the whole thing just like Neo did with that agent guy in the Matrix.
But I would never castrate any of them, I have to agree with Jamie on that.
This thing happened in the States ,so you don’t have to walk all the way to France to see strange things.
I think everyone can have their opinion about how countries should deal with things like this until it stops being a “global problem” and become their own problem. Then they might think again.
There is something fishy about the story of the police telling the girl she shouldn’t have dressed provocatively and that “nothing was done”. It sounds like a story from the 1940s, and the parents didn’t use all their options to get the rapist caught.
The first thing they should have done was to take the girl immediately to the hospital and have a “rape kit” done on the girl. No hospital will refuse this, and if the man’s DNA is found in her, it’s a slam-dunk case against him, and he goes right to prison.
I don’t believe that the police ignored the problem (the US is not Egypt), but if by some freak occurrence they really did, besides getting the rape kit done, the parents should have reported the problem with the police to the county sheriff’s office and/or the state police. You can bet that at these levels the problem would have been taken seriously, and not only would the man be arrested and convicted, the police who refused to act on the report would also be in serious trouble.
I simply don’t believe the story happened the way the show claimed it did.
Are you an expert in Egyptian police practices?
As I said, until something like this doesn’t appear in your own life you can easily say they should do this or that. You can even say that you trust the system so much, people who clamed they had been ignored simply lie.
What part didn’t you believe by the way?
When the police didn’t believe them?When he shot him?
A story like this couldn’t happen in America?
They all liars ain’t they 
Yawn!
Have you ever visited a prison? People in there have all kinds of rationalizations for what they have done.
It’s easy to excuse people by saying that people outside the situation can’t understand their motivations and actions. However, if we did that all the time, there would be a lot of serial murderers still running around the streets, and people would be murdering and raping nonstop all the time. Most people whose children are molested don’t become vigilantes and don’t commit murder, so this man had something wrong with him.
And what if the some other very common occurrence happened: The child is molested, and has been scared by her abuser so much about the consequences of her telling anyone, that she makes up a story and accuses someone other than the real molester – some innocent person.
There are a million ways in which the vigilante could wind up killing the wrong person. It’s happened before. The situation has to be left up to the hospital and the police.
I don’t believe that the police left them no other option than to become vigilantes. Even if they live in some teeny-tiny town with only one policeman, who is an idiot, he was still not their last resort. As I said, people would have gone to the county sheriff or the state police. It takes one quick phone call. If they had taken the girl to the hospital, the hospital staff would have brought in whatever police agency would actually do something about it. The nurses would not take “she dressed too provocatively” for an answer, and they would get the right law enforcement agency involved.
So, no, I don’t believe anyone in America can be left with no choice but vigilante justice when it comes to child molestation. Not for more than 50 years.
Besides, Oprah herself has a background of molestation, and her show has always been biased toward exaggerating the level of social pathology in American society. On some days, it’s like an upscale version of the Jerry Springer show.
So you think if you’d been molested you’d be Oprah biggest fan?
Do you trust your judjes ,and officers? Then let them kill those maggots.
Don’t you trust them? Then don’t let them put pedophiles in prison, because if they wrong, no one can make up those years for them.
Anyway, they’ll be out again soon, so that’s the way thease things sould work.
America never worries about killing inocent people when it comes to a different country.
If you are so objective, why is their side you picked?
If the system serves you, you like it.
What if it failes you?
Your opinion won’t count anymore?
Just because you are personally involved?
You sound like the president, only he knows he’s telling lies.
Mind, as you say, the US is not Egypt. Egypt has thousand of years of culture and the US has Dylan, Macdonald’s, Hollywood, Disney, The Largest Frying Pan in the World, etc. :lol:
Egypt had been alright right until Jamie went to the cops and they sent him away.
It’s not a good place since