Butcher of Ramadi Turned in By Iraqis

#4
tomahawk6 said:
I find Fox to be more reliable and less opinionated than al Jazeera or CNN. Just personal preference.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you expect to be taken seriously on here? :roll:
 
#8
tomahawk6 said:
Funny the response one gets here when pointing out some good news from Iraq.
Not questioning good news, just your assertion that Fox is balanced. No more so than a two wheeled car.
 
#9
tomahawk6 said:
Funny the response one gets here when pointing out some good news from Iraq.
Point a few other sources than the US PR machine called Fox and people may believe.

Trust me, I am very aware of both our guys and your guys sacrifices over there. However, one uncorroborated story from Fox is like believing that Jack and Jill really are still up the hill.

I'll disbelieve a story that I really do want to believe until it is proven by multiple credible sources, not just a US PR rag.
 
#10
I like Fox. If I lived in the UK I would watch Sky. I dont condemn you for the news sources you like. The bottom line is that you might be missing out on stories that wont show up on the BBC. Every day I read news articles from sources all over the world. Its interesting how some stories arent covered at all, many others have variances. Like UK media not wanting to call the UK bombers terrorists. The BBC was so slanted during the invasion of Iraq that the crews of RN ships dropped the BBC in favor of Sky.
 
#13
Aunty Stella said:
Good job that loads of us sided with you in the CIVIL WAR (I understand that you call it the war of independance)
isnt that the one were the negro slave owning and ethnic clensers of the north american 'first nation' peoples didnt want to pay thier taxes for being saved from the french in the 7 year war of 1756-1763 ????
 
#14
Iraqis Hand Over 'The Butcher,' High-Ranking Al Qaeda Member
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178273,00.html
tomahawk6 said:
A very good sign.
So, the good citizens of Ramadi have handed over this chap have they? Hmmmmm! I suspect that the story has changed somewhat between Camp Blue Diamond and the Fox newsdesk.... :wink:

If it's completely true, then this Amir Khalaf Fanus must have done something to really pi$$ of the locals. Did he threaten to do a 'Vichy', or simply lower the going rate for a 'volunteer'?
 
#15
Good point about the BBC in Iraq, they have always opposed the war in Iraq (so much for 'balance and impartiality') - their Baghdad correspondant, Caroline Hawley, always looks like she has sucked on a lemon before presenting her report.
 
#16
still believe the BBC before I'd believe FOX.
When you see the FOX commentators joining in to help out berating a 'liberal' during an exchange of views OR a 'whites forage, blacks loot' sort of comment you have to wonder just how far up their own arrses their brains are.
 
#17
You have admit John O'Reilly is a blast. I hear he recently received a drubbing from Jon Stewart, but still, he's a fine polemicist.
Things is FN tends to exaggerate a little. According to my sources, the "Butcher of Ramadi" is locally referred to simply as 'Steve'.
 
#18
Rhabdo said:
You have admit John O'Reilly is a blast. I hear he recently received a drubbing from Jon Stewart, but still, he's a fine polemicist.
Things is FN tends to exaggerate a little. According to my sources, the "Butcher of Ramadi" is locally referred to simply as 'Steve'.
:lol: O'Reilly is great entertainment. He can't even keep a grin off his face when it proclaims his show, "A no spin zone".


tomahawk6 said:
The bottom line is that you might be missing out on stories that wont show up on the BBC. Every day I read news articles from sources all over the world. Its interesting how some stories arent covered at all, many others have variances.
And why is that do you think?


tomahawk6 said:
Like UK media not wanting to call the UK bombers terrorists.
I can't remember the term that was used and I agree is wasn't the best. However, you've got to remember there is a huge Muslim population in the UK and at the time of the bombing it was right for the media to be extra careful how it reported events. Passions were running high and it is a credit to the country that there wasn't a much worse backlash. Look at the recent riots in France. Something considerably more violent could have happened in the UK after 7/7, and that would not have been in anybodies interest.

But not to get too far off the topic, is it right for a respectable news agency to attack the reporting of other news providers? Especially when it's the biggest rival of your sister company? O'Reilly and other Fox news readers constantly snipe at the BBC, the main attack being because they did not use the word "terrorist" in relation to the UK bombers. You will never see BBC reporters attacking any other news agency.

tomahawk6 said:
The BBC was so slanted during the invasion of Iraq that the crews of RN ships dropped the BBC in favor of Sky.
I agree the BBC is generally reporting the war in Iraq negatively. The war in Iraq that is, not the war on terror.

As I see it there are two reasons for this.

Firstly the Dr. David Kelly affair. After his suicide and the Hutton report, the BBC Director-General was forced to resign. However, morally the BBC probably believe themselves to have been in the right, that the war in Iraq was a mistake, the intelligence was flawed, and that it has probably contributed to Islamic extremism rather than helping to prevent it.

Secondly, the BBC is a publicly funded organisation and is very conscience of any interference from the Government. I feel sometimes the BBC tends to over compensate by being overly critical of whatever the Government does, so to prove it is not a puppet of the Government.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top