Ironworks Gaming Forum - Iraqi footballers' fury at Bush

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Iraqi footballers' fury at Bush (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77239)

Quote:

Originally posted by pritchke:

If they get Gold would Bush take credit himself? :eek:

Was that a serious question? The "wee oil monkee" is capable of anything if there might be a vote in it. Congrats to the Iraqi's - we were unlucky to lose to them in the quarter-finals, but it was a quality goal that they scored. I hope they go all the way, and I hope Bush stops using and exploiting them (I think they have more chance of success with the former though).

Quote:

Originally posted by Aerich:
A misleading article, IMO.

The article is mistitled. It is named "footballers fury" because some editor hack liked the alliteration and didn't read the article. The little paragraph preceding the actual quotes also does a "good" job of channeling the reader into the writer's slant about what was said by the Iraqis.

I don't see any "fury" here. I see resentment by Iraqis at the attempt to make American political hay from the Iraqi Olympic team. I see resentment of Bush's grand sweeping statements. They are also asking hypothetical questions on the world stage to challenge the manner in which the US has pursued its objectives.

The athletes are unhappy with the current situation; they have been promised freedom and a better (read: safer, more peaceful, and more prosperous) life, and they want it NOW. They don't quite understand yet that it is a long process. The athletes are showing their dissatisfaction with the reality and what was promised; or more correctly, their conception of what was promised.

Awesome dude. You just saved me the trouble of making another post. I agree, word for word (it felt kinda eerie reading your post, like ticking off the positive points of a contract: "yes...yes...I like what you've done here... yes..." ;) ) [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 08-24-2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

I kinda cracked wen i read about the Iranian wrestler, who had to wrestle an Israeli opponent. He didn't want to wrestle a jew, but he also didnt want to ruin his career by simply refusing to play the match. So he ate and he ate and he ate, and after that he ate some more. In two days, he ate so much, that he gained enough kilo's to disqualify him for the match against the Israeli. :D

Not really on topic, but i guess i'm good at that. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Thanks, Hierophant. Glad I, erm, saved you the trouble of making another post. ;)

Sad thing is that it's an article from the BBC, a source often considered one of the best/most objective news sources in the world. I think somebody fell down on the neutrality watch.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, Aerich. The BBC was not "neutral" in it's coverage of the Iraqi War and they seem to be continuing with that trend.

Neutrality is comparative Cerek. Compared to the standards that the British people elect to hold the BBC they were not neutral. Compared to the bias of FOX they were saintly beyond repraoach. See what I mean - it's comparative ;) .

Quote:

Originally posted by johnny:
I kinda cracked wen i read about the Iranian wrestler, who had to wrestle an Israeli opponent. He didn't want to wrestle a jew, but he also didnt want to ruin his career by simply refusing to play the match. So he ate and he ate and he ate, and after that he ate some more. In two days, he ate so much, that he gained enough kilo's to disqualify him for the match against the Israeli. :D

Not really on topic, but i guess i'm good at that. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Doesn't that mean that the Israeli wrestler automatically won?

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros:
Neutrality is comparative Cerek. Compared to the standards that the British people elect to hold the BBC they were not neutral. Compared to the bias of FOX they were saintly beyond repraoach. See what I mean - it's comparative ;) .

Quote:

Originally posted by The Hierophant:
Well, I've always believed that it takes a special creed of fool to be swayed by such blatant campaign sleaze as election propaganda adverts anyway.

and there are alot of them here in the USA (yes I am an American but not one of those fools ... maybe a Kerry fool. [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Davros:
Neutrality is comparative Cerek. Compared to the standards that the British people elect to hold the BBC they were not neutral. Compared to the bias of FOX they were saintly beyond repraoach. See what I mean - it's comparative ;) .

That's very true, Davros, and I phrased my original response to reflect that aspect of "relativism", but I apparantly hit the wrong button and that post was deleted instead of posted.

But does the BBC really want to justify their non-neutrality by comparing themselves to Faux News??? Or should they maintain their integrity and compare their current reporting style to their past reputation? [/QUOTE]I quote: Another report by Media Tenor, the German-based media research organisation, examined the Iraq reporting of some of the world's leading broadcasters in the lead up to the war.

The worst case of denying access to anti-war voices was the BBC, which gave just two per cent of its coverage to opposition views - views that represented those of the majority of the British people.

[ 08-25-2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]