Its official your nuts.

So you discredit all international media and call it all anti-american. Good one. Maybe you don't get it but almost ALL of the media not just international have stated they do not see us as liberaters. Is it that hard for you to grasp that?! Someone comes to your home and stays there, and you want them to leave. And violence is not just "Sunni" areas its wide spread. Its mostly in eight major city's including Baghdad. What a shocker! Oh and a nice little update since, marshall law for sixty days has just been instated. Yep things are going great!

 

Did you read my post? Where did I say "all foreign media is not credible?" If you can quote me on that, I'll admit I'm nuts in my next post.

What I said, and what apparently your language skills prevented you from getting, is that the media only report one side of the story. That is, they report on the victimization that occurs, and on troop losses, but rarely and in sketch on military success. You should also notice that I didn't address the question of being a "liberator", because it's not relevant. The Iraqis don't have to like us in order to want to build a new state with aid from the U.S. And, the Al Sadr breakdown earlier this year is pretty good evidence that the major Shi'ite factions are starting to play ball.

For your own sake, go ahead and list those 8 major cities...then tell us all how many of them fall outside the Sunni triangle, or are affected by violence that is not Sunni backed. Then reread my first post with your ESL dictionary and phrasebook.

 

Anything else? Thought not.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6152272

Check that out. My bad it was more than 8 cities. Of course MSNBC is one of those anti-american biased international media outlets!

 

First of all, I think you need to look up the word "bias." Presenting only one side of a story, even if what you present on that side is technically true, isn't lying...but it is bias.

Second, you failed to list which of those cities are not in the Sunni triangle or affected by Sunni inspired violence. Let me do that for you, since you apparently did not wish to answer the question:

Samarra, Tikrit, Ramadi, Fallujah, Najaf, and Mahmoud et al. are in the above mentioned Sunni territories. That's a particular ethnic group, which for the also above mentioned reasons, is against a democratic and stable Iraq, AND for which a major successful assault on fallujah will change the playing the field.

FYI, Sunni's are the minority by far in Iraq. Shi'ite, ie Al Sadr, who is mentioned in the little map as having given up his arms against the US, are the vast majority of the population.

Now do you understand the big picture? Sunnis are the big problem right now. Sunni's are a smaller part of the population, but they're stirring up trouble because they don't want the U.S. to help the majority Shi'ite groups gain a voice in the government. This is why it's silly to say "All of Iraq is fighting the US!" and why it's equally silly to say that destroying the sources of Sunni resistance will change nothing.

 

Biased is a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. Hence if they are giving impartial judgment wouldn't that come to define them as, lets guess here non-valid? Just like if a ref is biased he would not work as a ref. And since in the public view the media is the "ref" of what happens in Iraq then would that not make them invalid as a media outlet?

Second I said that they are not all in Sunni area's. Which that link showed of the major cities that are having problems. And there are over ten cities geographically all over Iraq. Not centered in one area. On top of that they just declared Marshall Law for SIXTY days. Why would they need to do this if things where going great all over but minor areas?

Also you still have not said once how they do not see us as being liberaters. This is not just the international media saying this. Also I never said "All of Iraq is fighting the US!" I said this....

Which maybe if your blind and didn't notice in the map that the fighting IS spread all over Iraq like I stated. Thats why its silly for you to put words in my mouth.

 

That is probably the single worst logical construction I've seen in the past three years, bar none. What does "invalid" have to do with "lying", and, further, what do you have to say about the obvious one sided reporting by the media on this subject? You won't say the coverage is balanced because then you'd have to say that the media have no political interests and always give a fair picture. That would be funny, at least. But does the fact that a media outlet is "invalid", or whatever you want to call it, mean that it is lying? No. It means what I said it means: it's only giving one side of the story. And you refuse to consider that, which is why you can't see the other side of the story.

They'd need to do this because the Sunni groups are good at terrorism, and need to be crushed. It's a war. You have to do things to win it. Now, you're pretending they're not all Sunni areas...but name a Shi'ite area that's going nuts due to Shi'ite inspired violence.

See above. Whether or not they have deep love for every American is irrelevant. What's relevant is if they'll use the help we offer to build a new state.

Ah, my favorite: Spend your whole post talking about something else, then repeat exactly what I disputed in the previous post as if it's now true. Why are the Kurdish territories exempted from martial law? And, where are those non-Sunni hotspots?